German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily Transit Links Roundup
Contributed by Fred Camino on May 5th, 2008 at 9:47 am
- Rail, racialism, and L.A.’s eternal struggle with both.
- In case you still didn’t know, the gas-tax holiday is stupid.
- How much for that subway to the sea? $6.5 billion baby.
- Most Powerfullest Nation In The Universe has a baby-dick of rail system. Other well-endowed countries laugh.
- The real Miss Traffic is a Metro public relations MILF. But what about Stefanie?
Discussion
You can leave a response, or trackback. You can also subscribe to the comments feed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
From today’s Daily News regarding the four Westside Transit Corridor Extension Study alternatives moving forward:
————–
I was very glad to read this. We need both the Santa Monica and Wilshire Blvd. lines and I’m glad that 2 out of 4 proposals have both lines. Granted, Wilshire is the higher priority, but we need BOTH.
I will pay any reasonable increase in fares, fees and taxes in order to pay for the world class transit system Los Angeles deserves and needs in order to remain economically and environmentally sustainable.
The Pink Line is actively alive!
I was wondering if anyone can explain why the gas tax holiday is stupid in terms that doesn’t make transit fare subsidies look worse?
Anyone who believes that the gasoline companies will pass on the entire “savings” from a gas tax holiday to consumers is very gullible indeed.
Rob, I honestly have never once thought about transit fares while discussing the proposed gas tax holidays.
Would you support a transit fare holiday?
Transit fares are subsidized because of the inequality of the subsidized car-culture. Prior to the subsidized car-culture mass transit was unsubsidized. The subsidized car-culture is actually what created the welfare mass transit we see today, since even with with subsidized auto-roads, the cost of entry for an individual into the car-culture is very high leaving a significant portion of the population immobile without some form of transportation welfare.
We reap what we sow.
The Expo Line’s alignment through South LA reminds me of the Gold Line’s alignment through Highland Park. There are some definite similarities: both communities lie in the center of the route, are largely composed of less affluent residents, and feature (or could feature) non-grade-separated guideways. I am largely unfamiliar with the Gold Line planning process or whether there was outcry regarding the potential discrimination associated with putting nothing more than flashing “train” signs protecting 7 intersections along Marmion Way. Since the Gold Line opened there have been several accidents wherein a car ran a red light and was hit by a train but none involving pedestrians. Given the only accidents involve drivers either too stupid, too ignorant, or too brazen to notice or obey a plethora of signs that a large train is about to enter the intersection, i don’t think a lack of grade separation presents much of a safety hazard. My problem with a lack of grade separation is associated more with the fact the trains must travel far too slowly between Avenue 50 and Avenue 57. I would also like to note that there is an elementary school on Avenue 55 and Monte Vista, one block from the tracks, and no students have been hit by a train.
I certainly agree with the notion that the portion traveling through South LA has not received the same level of attention paid to other communities along the Expo Line alignment, i just have different motivations.
Oh, and why no news that Expo crossed the $100 million per mile mark last night?
Darrrrrel, ohhh DARELLLLLLLLLL……
Michaele, I understand the design of the Gold Line in Highland Park was changed to its “pedestrian mall” configuration at the request of the community, from an original proposal for 55 mph gated and fenced right-of-way. One half mile at 20 mph with signal priority doesn’t impact the Gold Line’s high overall speed very much.
Expo is different than Highland Park, building 1.6 miles of 35 mph boulevard-median tracks from west of Figueroa to west of Western. This is similar to the Eastside Gold Line on 3rd Street, Santa Monica’s proposal for the median of Colorado into downtown, much of the Phoenix line opening in December, Portland’s Interstate line, and others.
What happened last night, Rob?
I see high gasoline prices as resulting from limited oil supply and inelastic short-term demand. Removing gasoline taxes doesn’t reduce the price where demand matches supply, just transfers money from transportation funding to oil companies.
What is the demand elasticity for transit fares? I argue that transit would attract more “choice” riders by investing in better service than cutting fares as others advocate. But I don’t advocate major fare increases.
There is a public benefit to providing transit. I recall, Rob, a few years ago pricing the cost of additional road space that would be required if all current LA transit riders drove cars.
I went to the Westside Corridor meeting at LACMA this evening and all you fans of the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment can stop cheering about it still being included for consideration.
Both of the alignments that include Santa Monica involve having the Wilshire alignment branch at La Cienega and then turn north and east to Hollywood/Highland. No direct Hollywood-to-Century City route.
The planners say there is insufficient population density and employment concentration to run the line along the segment of Santa Monica between La Cienega and Wilshire. The way it’s presented now, I’d take bets that the Hollywood/Highland connection west and south will go on hold and be built as a separate line later.
Oh, and none of the Santa Monica alignments are a branch at Hollywood/Highland. There would be a transfer to/from the Red Line, on a separate platform, because “a branch would, because of the need to route some trains one way and some the other, result in too little service to Universal City and North Hollywood.”
Looks to me like it’s going to be Wilshire after all.
No heart lost here. This is still better than what would be on offer if we hadn’t pursued the matter, which would have been nothing. This line is still something to rally support around and if it is built after Wilshire, which I always expected, that is fine. There is a specific, worthy project now we can build support for. If it is a separate project, so be it. The MTA still needs to come up with a direct train to/from the valley to/from the Westside and I hope there was enough support expressed for a Sepulveda LRT for it to be included in the revised LRTP. To most people in So. Cal., such a line seems like a “no-brainer”.
The fact that 2 out of the 4 final alignments have a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment which can be extended to south to Expo and east to Sunset Junction and downtown is still something to celebrate. So, if you don’t mind, I think I’ll keep cheering and get right back to work building support for the SMB portion.
This news leaves a Hobson’s choice.
If we are willing to sacrifice the Subway to the Sea to, say, Subway to Century City, we could use the money not getting it to Santa Monica to build the West Hollywood branch.
Ridership would probably be higher by serving West Hollywood first, and extending the subway west when we have a few hundred billion dollars beyond the 25-year horizon.
That’s a real tough sell. I can hear the Wilshire-only people screaming now.
With the MTA’s decision not to take advantage of a one-seat ride from the Valley to the Westside through this project, it is possible to see the Santa Monica/La Cienega alignment as a separate project, perhaps a light rail eventually connecting with Expo/LAX to the south and SilverLake/Downtown to the east possibly as the western half of the “Silver Line” project.
Of the final four presented, if the MTA does back either of the two proposals that inlcude both the Wilshire and SantaMonica/LaCienega alignments, the Santa Monica/La Cienega portion would probably be considered “Phase 3″ by them, with Purple Line to Century City as Phase 1 and Century City to Santa Monica as Phase 2.
The Purple Line needs to go all the way to Santa Monica via Century City. The only question on offer for that is the Grove/BeverlyCenter route or the straight Wilshire alignment.
Dan, just invert phases 2 and 3.
Santa Monica will have two rail services once the system is completely built. Expo will come first. That takes care of the end-to-end travel, along with Big Blue Bus keeping Line 10 as a point-to-point service.
A service from Century City to Santa Monica will have less urgency, since one rail line is there.
Meanwhile, West Hollywood has no rail, though the city clearly deserves it. You’d actually gain more riders because of network effects. Many Santa Monica riders will be drawn away from the Expo Line, resulting in a lower net ridership gain. West Hollywood riders, with no rail, would be absorbed into the existing subway system. It would essentially be a 4 and 704 with rocket boosters. This brings more subway riders into West Hollywood, and WeHo riders can now have a fast and easy connection to Hollywood, Koreatown, the Valley and downtown L.A.
Good points, Wad.
Here are the revised alternative alignments for #11 and #16, the two finalists for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project that includes the framework of the Pink Line. They are both great for the Pink Line. These two alternatives, while not including a one-seat ride to/from the Valley to/from the Westside, do include the possibility for extension south to Expo/LAX and extension east to SilverLake/Downtown.
Pick your preferred Wilshire alignment and send your support to WestsideExtension@metro.net
Alternative #11
Alternative #16
Thanks for the maps, Dan, and much appreciation for your efforts to keep the Pink Line going. It’s still amazing to think that what was just an internet meme merited serious study by Metro.
Dan, when I pointed out inverting phases 2 and 3, this might improve the chances of West Hollywood getting rail. Remember: Santa Monica is getting rail, a sure thing in the Expo Line. They are covered.
For the cost of a subway between Century City and Santa Monica, you could take that money and build the West Hollywood alignment and get an unserved area into the network. Metro Rail would get higher ridership, and the riders along Wilshire and Santa Monica boulevards will produce the numbers that will make the extension to the sea a given.
I would greatly favor this approach over a straight shot on Wilshire. The Wilshire, and Santa Monica, riders will all be better off if we manage to trade the phases.
This is also how Washington DC builds its Metro. It grows its system by incrementally adding a few miles to a line at a time.
Picture that Santa Monica-La Cienega route continuing south of Wilshire.
It could connect to the Expo Line, to the Crenshaw Line, and ultimately all the way to LAX.
Hollywood-West Hollywood-Beverly Hills connection to the airport? That’s enough incentive for me to advocate it as a separate line.
Couldn’t also Alternative #11 and #16 be constructed as a “Circle Line” using the Red and Purple Lines, similar to the Circle Line in London?
Dan, I asked David Mieger about your “Circle Line” theory and he says that it would require a “double branch” at Hollywood/Highland and preclude a direct Century City-Hollywood line, which appears to have a relatively high ridership projection.
So the answer is: Technically, yes. Feasibly, no.
So that means a H/H - Century City line isn’t forever off the table then?
No, such a line is possible under the “combined alignment” alternatives, but it would require that the branch at La Cienega be south-to-west and east-to-north, so there could be no station at La Cienega itself. (And no Hollywood/Highland to downtown via La Cienega without transferring at the first station west of the branch … likely Robertson.)
And there would be no direct connection to the Red Line tracks at Hollywood/Highland.
Is there a design of the station that doesn’t have to force passengers to walk to Sunset Boulevard to catch this train? While the tracks can’t be shared, can Metro still cut into the same station box and create tunnels beside the existing ones?
This is a distraction. Right now, the line should go straight down Wilshire. (I have mixed feelings about the deviations to the Grove and Beverly Center)
Santa Monica Bl. really merits its own service, along the length of SM Bl from Downtown LA, through Echo Park and on through Hollywood and West Hollywood.
I couldn’t agree more. And if Alternative #11 of #16 is chosen, it would form the core of that service which could then be extended east to SilverLake then then to downtown and south on La Cienega to Expo and potentially even LAX (or west to Century City).
Therefore, I don’t see it as a distraction. It’s part of comprehensively extending transit to the Westside, where right now there is nothing. South of Wilshire will have the Blue Line, Green Line, Crenshaw Line and the middle of the Expo Line. The East County will have two Gold Lines. Right now, both the Westside and the Valley are playing catch up. Granted, that’s were most of the NIMBYs have been.
Imagine how far along we would have been if Waxman and Yaroslavsky had been pursuing the common good in the 80s and 90s instead of grandstanding for NIMBYs.
True. Unfortunately, we are now soo behind in building a reasonable system that I fear we are trying to make one line do too much. Yes we need the Wilshire line down to SM. We also need a line down Santa Monica to serve WeHo. And we need a N/S line down La Cienega connecting all these.
Imagine this La Cienega line extending from LAX north through the H.Hills to the Valley, and then to Burbank Airport, connecting both airports and all these lines.
We need all of these lines as fast, grade separated subways, yesterday.
In a word, yes.
And that is essentially what appears to be proposed in the alternatives maps (having the lines meet, on different platforms, at Hollywood/Highland). Although I suspect the new tracks will end up on a separate level from, rather than beside, the existing ones. Think 7th St/Metro Center, although not at a 90-degree angle. Or possibly parallel with a crossover at the mezzanine level.
But I am 99.8% certain no one is proposing exiting the station and walking a quarter-mile between lines.
Here is the potential problem that I see with that, Dan. Both your extension to Silver Lake and to Century City would be duplicative of the existing Red and future Purple Lines. As I posted earlier, I see the potential for a La Cienega line, if separate from the Purple Line, continuing south … but once you make it part of the Purple Line (via the combined alternatives) you can pretty much write off an extension to the south, for much the same reasons as not interlining at Hollywood/Highland (double branching, trying to create a branch track without disrupting service).
All that said, I think there is merit, when funds allow, to look into constructing a separate LRT line west from Union Station via Chavez-Sunset, connecting at Vermont/Sunset Station before continuing through the Los Feliz district to Glendale and Burbank. Silver Lake, though, likely doesn’t have the potential ridership to warrant anything more than a station on the Sunset alignment.
Same argument applies, Haven. To carry the La Cienega line through the Cahuenga Pass is duplicative of the Red Line and would not likely rank high in the order of future lines to be considered. I rather doubt there is a demonstrable need to link both airports, either (although the idea of extending the Red Line one station farther north, to Bob Hope Airport — which is in the LRTP project list — is worthy of further research).
I didn’t see the Santa Monica/La Cienega as “part” of the Purple Line, but that something that intersects with the Red Line, Purple Line and Expo.
If the Sunset Line (really the western half of the “Silver Line” project) goes to Sunset Juntion, then why not hook it down to Santa Monica / La Brea to meet the Santa Monica/La Cienega alignment in 11 and 16? Certainly the crowd of 30 people waiting for a westbound bus yesterday at Vermont/Santa Monica would have easily boarded a train taking them to LaBrea or further points west and south. I guess I don’t see the Red Line between Vermont/Santa Monica and the Valley and a Silver/Pink Vermont/Santa Monica and WeHo/LaCienega stretch as “duplicative” because one is ulitmately heading southwest and the other is ulitmately heading northwest into the valley.
I would also suspect, Dan, that creating a parallel line through Hollywood only one mile to the south of the existing Red Line would rank lower in cost-effectiveness and productivity as a result of the closeness of the two lines.
The Santa Monica-La Cienega line doesn’t suffer from that ranking because it acts as a connector between two subway lines.
I have feelings that a brief reroute to Third Street would be superior over the direct Wilshire route.
The best argument for a Third Street alignment and against a straight shot down Wilshire is: Building a 21-hour solution for a 4-hour problem.
Serving two shopping centers may seem decadent, but what produces more traffic at more hours? Also, what generates more transit ridership? The subway would see more ridership, especially during off-peak hours, by serving Third and Fairfax and Third and La Cienega.
Remember, a subway running underground is not the same as having a 720 turn to serve Third. It’s not such a severe reroute that end-to-end travel will look unattractive because it deviates from Wilshire. Don’t let the “Marmion effect” make you gun-shy over a route deviation.
Marmion effect, defined: The speed restriction on Marmion Way is singlehandedly responsible for the Gold Line being a failure. A more logical explanation would be that the Gold Line ends at Union Station, which is outside of the downtown central business district and transfers involve very long walks. No one says this. Southern California took a collective dump on the Gold Line saying a 35-minute ride from east Pasadena to downtown was too slow, even though the Gold Line’s average speed is remarkably fast. Specifically, the speed reduction at Marmion takes away three minutes of your life that you’ll never get back. That’s three minutes with the train crawling along that stretch of Marmion. The problem is, the costs of getting rid of the speed restriction do not produce any tangible reduction in travel time. The only benefit is 1-2 minutes of end-to-end time reduction. It wouldn’t be worth it to create the perception of speed.
One thing I’ve noticed about the “Marmion effect” is that the undeground Red Line has a very similar thing going on. I often ride to Union Station, and the approach from Civic Center to Union Station usually involves a 1.5 - 2.5 minute crawl to the finish line at what feels to be Marmion Way speeds.
FWIW, in my submission to the long range plan, I told Metro to place Sunset Boulevard for a rail MIS. I suggested tying it into the subway. Of course, you said several times the difficulty of branching routes. This plan would require reconfiguring three stations to junctions: Civic Center, Vermont/Sunset and Hollywood/Highland.
Echo Park and Silver Lake are interesting cases. These communities generate very high ridership, but all of it is concentrated on Sunset. This is the clearest case of bus ridership determining where any potential rail station should go. We can’t use the transfer nexus because Silver Lake only has one north-south bus line with really low ridership. That might not be the best place to put the station. The bus ridership produces a few boardings at many bus stops, which produces the overall high ridership. Since rail doesn’t stop every two blocks, we must know which cluster of bus stops has a high level of boardings.
This might be a good project for the Silver Lake and Echo Park neighborhood councils at some point. “If the Silver Line comes down Sunset, where do you most want the stops where the most increased development is likely to take place?”
There is nothing wrong with reconfiguration of stations for cross-platform transfers. Where I have issues is when, as Scott Mercer has repeatedly posted in another thread, a branch off an existing track would be proposed, because no matter what mitigating efforts you attempt, there will still be a point where you end up suspending existing service to finish the branch.
It has been said at the latest round of Westside Extension meetings that Wilshire is “one of the few corridors where HRT makes sense”. I wonder if the Sunset route could be at-grade LRT for much of its running, which might only require an underground segment in downtown, with no reconfiguration at Vermont/Sunset. (I still envision such a line not duplicating the Red Line in Hollywood, instead going north through Los Feliz to Glendale and then Burbank, so no H/H reconfiguration other than that for the Santa Monica-La Cienega line.)
Kymberleight, do you like HRT or LRT for SantaMonica/LaCienega? I like LRT so it may connect it to the Expo Line in each direction, and potentially to a Sepulveda LRT.
Re “The Marmion Effect”: Am I the only person riding the Gold Line who’s not bothered by traveling seven blocks at a little less than 20 mph? Drivers between L.A. and Pasadena would kiss the ground if such a lull was their only obstacle in going pedal to the metal. I’m reminded of a comment by Arthur Clarke in “Profiles of the Future”. To paraphrase: “No one wants to go down Fifth Avenue at Mach 2. But the residents of Manhattan would be profoundly grateful if they could always be assured of traveling that distance at least at the speed of a stagecoach.”
Or if they upgraded the Pacific Electric and LA Railway into rapid transit instead of ripping them up….
While we still have the wayback machine out….get rid of slavery and the holocaust too…
In my opinion, Waxman has never properly been held politically accountable for the drilling ban, and I wish he had a high-profile primary or minor party opponent to hold him accountable.
From being hostile to being “neutral” and repealing the drilling ban is not enough. If he won’t actively support funding public transit projects, then he needs to be replaced or forced into a more proactive position.
Dant, I believe LRT is the right mode if Santa Monica/La Cienega is done as a separate line, not just from the standpoint of interconnectivity, but because it is the better capacity match for the projected ridership.
What makes you think increased density is even needed? Sunset is already producing very high bus ridership with what’s there.
Hipsters are NIMBYs, too.
I didn’t say increased density is needed. Increased density is inevitable when a rail stop is added, because everyone wants to be near it. Bringing the neighborhood councils aboard is a way of reducing NIMBY-ism. I suspect that all of the 704 stops are probably fine for this line. If fewer are appropriate, why not ask the NCs which ones they favor?
How about the one at Sweetzer Ave. which the City of West Hollywood insisted on because, even though there is no cross-street connecting service, it does place a 704 stop in front of their city hall?
I was referring to the Rapid 704 between downtown Sunset Junction as part of the Silver Line, not the portion of Santa Monica Blvd. that is part of Alternative #11.
In WeHo, I think Sweetzer is an arguably fine Rapid Bus stop as it is used and it is their City Hall. For the rail stops on the SantaMonica/LaCienega Line, I think LaBrea/Fairfax/LaCienega/SanVicente are fine without an extra stop on Sweetzer.
Disagree on the first point (Sweetzer is incredibly short-spaced to La Cienega, considering Rapid stops are supposed to be at least three-quarters of a mile apart unless a stop is added for cross-direction transfer connections).
Agree on the second. But I wouldn’t put it past WeHo to want a station at City Hall instead of at La Cienega.