LAist: Getting Closer to the Westside: Subway, Bus, Aerial, Nothing?

Kymberleigh

Sun, 11 May 2008 14:26:55 -0800

One more thing I should have mentioned earlier... The subway extension would not be a case of "digging up the entire Wilshire corridor" because the tunneling machines operate below the street. The only "digging" required is to create the starting point(s) for the tunneling machines and for some of the station construction (and not even always then).

Jody F Litvak

Sat, 10 May 2008 19:09:39 -0800

Thanks for keeping the study in the news. Just want to let everyone know that you can find the latest presentation with all the proposed maps, and much more, on the study web site at www.metro.net/westside. Be sure to click on "contact us" and fill out the form so that we cna keep you informed about the study as we move forward. And, for those of you on Face Book, check out and joing our group "Metro Westside Extension." Just to clarify, all remaining alternatives include going to Century City and Westwood. Those are projected to be high, high boarding locations.

Kymberleigh

Fri, 09 May 2008 16:43:45 -0800

With all due respect, there is no part of Wilshire Blvd. that is anything like St. Louis, Missouri.

jbj

Fri, 09 May 2008 15:52:44 -0800

Not underground - below ground. An open trench ala the LA River is much cheaper than tunneling or elevating. It also has the benifit of being quieter and safer for traffic. St. Louis did it and it is a great alternative.

skd

Fri, 09 May 2008 15:49:16 -0800

There are always people bumming for day passes just as you get up past the area where they will put in those damn turnstiles. So obviously if people are hesitant to ride the subways without a ticket, the $250 fine is working. I suspect someone is getting rich, and others are getting cash or other kickbacks, by putting in these turnstiles. I just wish we the people had more control over the MTA and their shenanigans.

jrb

Fri, 09 May 2008 13:11:55 -0800

"(Which is why some of us believe that spending millions of dollars on gates is a waste of money.)" ITA, a $250 fine is incentive enough to pay the $1.25 fare. The 5% who risk it have to be stupid.

danwuh

Fri, 09 May 2008 12:58:37 -0800

Nice one Kimberleigh, thanks for the heads up with the link.

Zach Behrens

Fri, 09 May 2008 12:36:08 -0800

hongita, you do have to pay to use the Subway. The people who just walk through probably have a day, weekly or month pass already in their wallet just in case a Sheriff checks.... that or they are cheating. Currently, it is an honor system, but Metro approved the installation of gates. You'll feel back at home in NYC soon enough.

Kymberleigh

Fri, 09 May 2008 12:35:01 -0800

The subway is not free. It operates on a proof of payment system (at least until the multimillion dollar gates are installed). If you do not carry a monthly/weekly/daily pass, you purchase a ticket before going down to the platform. If a sheriff's deputy or fare inspector asks to see your ticket or pass, you show it. If you are riding without a ticket or pass, you are cited and have to pay a $250 fine. The people you see "walking down and riding without paying" are, for the most part, people who have a pass and already know they have paid. It is estimated that less than 5% of the passengers are riding without a pass and without buying a ticket. (Which is why some of us believe that spending millions of dollars on gates is a waste of money.)

hongita

Fri, 09 May 2008 12:08:13 -0800

I've noticed that you don't have to pay to ride the subway here. I'm from NYC, and I thought it was really strange how there are no turnstiles or workers sitting in booths keeping watch. I usually buy a day pass anyway. But people just walk down and ride the subway without paying. How does the city make money??? Is it well known to residents here that the subway is free? I'm thoroughly confused.

Kymberleigh

Fri, 09 May 2008 11:57:09 -0800

danwuh, the "convincing argument against trams" you wanted is in the presentation Metro gave at these public meetings. It all has to do with passenger capacity. Look at page 8 of the presentation and you will see that the heavy rail subway has nearly twice the capacity of a light rail system (which is what a tram is). The Wilshire corridor has far too high a transit demand for anything other than the highest capacity mode to be feasible. Plus, I suspect that light rail, which would have to be operated at-grade (since the aerial option is decidedly out of the question -- see pages 12 through 18 -- and if you're going to put it underground you may as well build a heavy rail subway) would result in a travel time that would be little better than bus. The figure that was quoted by Metro's planners verbally at the public meetings was that the subway would have a travel time of under 30 minutes from Westwood to downtown Los Angeles; an at-grade light rail system would probably be somewhere around the Miracle Mile in that time. You asked for it, now you have it.

samkim

Fri, 09 May 2008 00:01:23 -0800

we could just be like the Chinese and use eminent domain to make a nice efficient railway system...but knowing LA they would make sure the railway avoids the gentrified areas and build the railway right through the neighborhoods of people who actually needed it, but now that they don't live there anymore, the subways would be empty. sigh...

zippy_monster

Thu, 08 May 2008 23:46:43 -0800

Ho ho ho, that's rich. You guys wanna see what a streetcar without a dedicated right of way looks like? Come visit San Francisco. A shared RoW is just an invitation to useless public transit. Do it right the first time, do it underground.

PaulieH

Thu, 08 May 2008 21:44:09 -0800

I like the idea of having stops at The Grove, Century City, and Westwood. Having the line go to the ocean isn't enough, it has to have strong destinations along the way. It'll help keep those areas thriving. Having the transfer at Hollywood/ Highland is essential. People from the valley and Hollywood won't want to go all the way downtown before heading west. I live in walking distance to Hollywood/ Highland, and work in Santa Monica. If I could hop on the transfer and head directly west, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If the train went downtown first, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on. It would add too much time to the commute. Underground is the way to go. The streets are congested enough. With all the new housing construction coming in, there won't be any more room on the streets for a dedicated bus lane (or a tram). A dedicated bus lane would still have to stop at red lights, taking away the time savings that a subway would offer. Coming from Boston, I was used to taking the subway everywhere. I'd love for LA to get to a similar level within my lifetime.

Alexcantsee

Thu, 08 May 2008 17:58:59 -0800

At least planning is in full swing, it's about fucking time, because commuting in LA is a bitch. Continuing the subway on Wilshire seems reasonable and practical, with deviations to Culver City, maybe Long beach, Westwood, the Santa Monica corridor. I like the idea. I think what is on everyones' mind is that construction is going to be intolerably long and arduous; not to mention, painful on local businesses. Many would prefer no construction at all and would rather waste hours almost everyday in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Underground Railway seems like the way to go, but Bus transportation must still remain a priority.

Zach Behrens

Thu, 08 May 2008 17:34:25 -0800

The Orange Line is a dedicated road or busway with no authorized access to private cars. A dedicated lane would be a bus-only lane within a street dedicated to personal car use and buses, etc. It's like what they are doing on Wilshire right now -- a bus lane. But I'll change to bus lane, I think that will help clarify:) Thanks!

torrmoz

Thu, 08 May 2008 17:27:13 -0800

"the rapid bus alternative (think dedicated street lanes, not Orange Line" Wait, than what is the Orange Line? It has a dedicated lane. It's not literally on the street, but it's a dedicated "lane." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Orange_Line "Orange Line is a dedicated busway running on a former Southern Pacific right-of-way, using 60-foot buses." So how would the Rapid Bus To The Sea be diff than the Orange line?

danwuh

Thu, 08 May 2008 17:04:45 -0800

Talk about polar cash opposites. Heavy underground rail or another poxy bus service. Im yet to hear a convincing argument against trams which surely are a better, more cost effective alternative to digging up the entire Wilshire corridor. St Kilda Road in Melbourne; http://www.premier-capital.com/eng/current/images/a_chevron_04.jpg I would approximate its width to be in the region of Wilshire or possibly Olympic. That whiteish / grey strip running down the center of that boulevard is a tram priority track. That means yes you can still turn in the tram lane with priority signals moving the traffic. I fail to see why this wouldnt be a more efficient use of the Wilshire Corridor. You could even add traffic priority left turns that merge with the tracks on the really tricky intersections since - unlike cars - trams sort of only go one of two ways and you can sort of pre-empt what they are doing by observing the tracks on the ground. Ive had the luck to enjoy Melbournes tram system and similar plans would be PERFECT for LA's large boulevard system. Hell all that wasted middle lane business would finally get a purpose. Just a thought...