RSS
November 3, 2007
LAist Poll: 'Subway to Sea,' Wilshire or through WeHo?
The LA Times is reporting today that Metro may be seriously looking at an extremely different route for half of the proposed Purple Line subway extension that would take commuters from Downtown to Santa Monica. However, the idea discussed here would take underground riders from the Hollywood/Highland station to Wilshire Blvd. along Santa Monica Blvd., traveling through West Hollywood and Beverly Hills hitting near the Beverly Center mall and Cedars-Sinai:
The new concept is still in its preliminary stages, and the Wilshire alignment remains on the table. But even though officials don't have funding for the $6-billion project, the new concept has sparked much debate because of how crucial many officials see the subway to easing the Westside's traffic woes.The new route would bypass the Miracle Mile and Hancock Park, where opposition remains strong to a subway from residents in the upscale residential district.
At the same time, officials and residents in Hollywood and West Hollywood are rolling out the welcome mat, saying the younger, apartment-living residents in that area would be more likely to take the subway. [LA Times]
What says you? Vote on the poll after the jump.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
What a horrible idea... while I definitely thing a Santa Monica route needs to be a long-term priotiy, think how long it'll take to get from Union Station to Wilshire/Vermont to Hollywood/Highland and back down to Colorado/4th... it's a sideways S, and it'll defeat any speed advantage that a Wilshire route provides. Because you'll be weaving back and forth across LA, the subway will be no faster than driving.
[ report this ]
Its not supposed to be faster than driving.. its supposed to take you where you need to go
[ report this ]
I''m still waiting for a faster and safer way to get from Chinatown to the LACMA by foot. If they want to build the alternate route, let them do it but at least call it the Periwinkle line and give me access to Fairfax.
[ report this ]
What is the simple way to not give into Hancock Park NIMBY's? Keeping the westward extension and not putting a station at Wilshire/Crenshaw. They're right Metro should not waste $200 Million on a station these snobs won't use. And with that money saved that can be better used to connect the Crenshaw Corridor from Wilshire/Crenshaw to Wilshire/La Brea via Mid City that where there's ridership and supportive land uses to make the subway a success.
[ report this ]
going down la brea is fkn retarded. no one needs to go to room 5 and lame ass pinks that bad.
[ report this ]
Just build it, we will come.
[ report this ]
the weho/santa monica blvd branch is an excellent idea! but the straight-down-wilshire (with century city slight detour) route should definately be the priority. first get people between downtown l.a. and santa monica. this weho branch should be part of a second route between santa monica and hollywood as the endpoints, and not as a pass-through for travelers going between sm and dtla.
[ report this ]
This is a false choice. We need BOTH funded and built, quickly and safely.
There's more to the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment than just traveling from the Westside to downtown. It has North/South benefits as well.
Jody Litvak of the MTA stated in a City Beat interview that at the resent MTA Westside transit extension forums they received more people commenting support for a westward extension form Hollywood/Highland than they expected.
They are obligated to consider it. At first the MTA ignored West Hollywood and the City of West Hollywood had to ask for a forum to make sure they weren’t left out.
It is understandable to believe the people at the MTA (as well as much of L.A.) had already made up their minds unofficially for a Wilshire alignment to the sea. Remember, they’ve had 20 years to think about this.
The article shows that there is popular support for a subway in Hollywood/West Hollywood without the old guard residential opposition. If the MTA is even considering a second alignment seriously, it is because the grass roots is demanding it.
What I saw and read about at the forums were people arguing for a second line in addition to the Purple Line extension. For some people, that meant Santa Monica Blvd from La Brea to Century City. For others, that meant something north/south from Hollywood/Highland, zig zagging, possibly connected with the Crenshaw project.
I didn’t hear anyone arguing for the “Pink” Line INSTEAD of the “Purple” Line to the sea.
The LA Times reporting hasn’t been really stellar. In an earlier article, the Wilshire alignment didn’t even mention the possibility of spurring into Century City. Their online “Bottleneck Blog” hasn’t been refreshed in several days.
What I think is happening is a realization that a Purple Line extension by itself isn’t enough and that many people want a “Pink” or second alignment proposed at the same time as part of the same corridor study.
However, this isn’t just about getting downtown from the Westside. The San Fernando Valley has a stake in this discussion. The gentleman from the MTA who did the visual presentation at the Santa Monica forum mentioned that the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor has regional implications as well. It would allow for a direct ride from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside, which anyone who’s snaked through a canyon to work or ridden the Sepulveda Pass knows is needed as much as the Red Line helps the Valley go southeast to downtown.
I think the L.A. Times reporter, who probably drove to work in a single-occupancy vehicle, is just having a brain awakening to the other possibilities for westside rail for the first time. They embody L.A.’s establishment and they like much of L.A.’s establishment is playing catch up.
I don’t think anyone expects the MTA to commit to building the Pink line first. However, if they built both lines at the same time, that would be a dream come true for me.
I’m glad Jody Litvak also mentioned she heard support for a Sepulveda/405 Line from LAX to the Valley.
I also think there could be Crenshaw project possibilities to head north on Farfax/LaCienega/SanVicente.
But, whatever. I’m just glad the LA Times didn’t run over to misguided idiots at the BRU to ask what they thought and how improved bus service would lead to a socialist bus-only transit riding utopia, which it wouldn't.
The MTA needs to continue improving bus service, but bus-only transit will not keep L.A. economically and environmentally sustainable. And, the money not spent on rail would go into the futile attempt to preserve the quality of single-occupancy motoring.
[ report this ]
Both lines must be built. The West Hollywood corridor is a very important line as it would cross high-density neighborhoods and areas that attract tens of thousands of people daily (e.g. the strip and "Boystown")... but if we had to choose only one for now, I would give priority to the Wilshire corridor before the West Hollywood corridor, simply due to the more direct route, higher bus ridership, and higher density of businesses and other destinations.
[ report this ]
We need to keep our eyes on the prize. The line needs to be built down Wilshire Blvd. ASAP as it is the heaviest corridor and needs the service.
Could this be a distraction and a monkey wrench in the works to slow down the line like the Venice Sepulveda detour on the Expo Line was to slow or stop it? With out this detour the line would now be complete for the same amount of money to Santa Monica as it is taking to only get to Culver City.
This same strategy could delay or stop the subway to the sea and would certainly delay it’s start of construction and drive up cost.
An elevated LRT or Monorail line from the Hollywood Highland Station Red Line Station to West Hollywood, Beverley Hills and to Century City could do the job for a lot less and the Wilshire subway would not be delayed.
Alan Fishel
[ report this ]
Those of us who fervently believe in the “Pink Line” do not see this as a distraction, but as a vitally important project with its own substaintial merits. If the Pink Line is proposed as an LRT, I don’t think that would be objected to by many who want a rail line of some sort built. The Pink Line has even been mentioned as a possible northern branch of the Crenshaw Line as an LRT, going up San Vicente to Santa Monica and then cutting over to Hollywood/Highland, in addition to the idea of a Hollywood/Highland to Century City extension. I like the idea of it going from H/H to LaBrea/Santa Monica then to LaCienega/SantaMonica to the LaBrea stop of the Expo Line as a vital north/south link.
While I agree with everyone who believes the Purple Line is the first priorty, that doesn’t meant that Pink Line supporters are throwing a wrench into the works.
It came as a surprise to the MTA and probably to others how much support there is for some sort of Santa Monica Blvd. project, whatever modality that turns out to be.
It makes sense that the civic leaders in West Hollywood would work to try and ensure their city wasn’t left out of the rail system altogether as may have seemed likely if they hand’t lobbied to get the MTA’s attention. They at least have the MTA’s attention that there is need and popular support for something.
I would expect the City of WeHo and other Pink Line supporters to keep lobbying for it. However, I wouldn’t fear it. After 20 years of waiting, I cannot conceive the MTA will not go for the Wilshire alignment first.
I’m a believer in a rising tide lifting all boats. The more interest there is in mass transit anywhere in So. Cal. helps the cause of mass transit everywhere in So. Cal.
I wonder if the MTA has the right to kick off those parking structures on their former track land in Beverly Hills. Beverly Hills doesn’t seem to want a Santa Monica Blvd. stop at this time. If some Pink Line modality is built, it seems those who lobbied for a Beverly Connection / Cedar Sinai stop will be in luck and those who have their hearts set on taking rail to the Grove may not be, but who knows at this point.
There is a big difference between Pink Line supporters and the Cheviot Hills NIMBY trying to get the Expo line detoured to Venice-Sepulveda.
The support for the Pink Line is genuine and comes from the people who live and work and play in those communities and genuinely want it. It is not being proposed as an alternate roots by the Hancock Park old guard trying to stop the Purple Line.
I have yet to hear anyone who supports the Pink Line to say it should be built INSTEAD of the Purple Line. The fact that any part of So. Cal. wants mass transit and will lobby for it is something to celebrate, IMO.
As a side note, Beverly Hills has a preference for the Wilshire alignment, so it’s politically easier at this point to go forward with that.
As much as I would love to ram a Crenshaw Blvd. stop down the throats of people in Hancock Park who have been fighting a subway for years, perhaps the MTA should put off committing to building a Crenshaw stop just to get the line built and through. But that’s for another thread.