Battle Brews Over Subway to the Sea

The Red Car (2.00 / 1)

Why isn't a mass electric bus line being considered with commuter express lines? I know its been a while, since "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" but electric bus lines are an important part of many cities mass transit system. They are able to reach more sections of the city, run clean, and don't have issues with oil and gas pockets in LA, where especially in the west side you see tar bubble up through the sidewalks (to say nothing of the earthquake issue). The red cars took people from all over town to any section they wanted and back (and for a nickel back then). This seems like a logical alternative not being discussed.

---

by: thereddon @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 19:07:34 PM UTC

Red Cars lack the necessary capacity and will get stuck in traffic. (4.00 / 1)

Well, the problem is that we already have mass bus lines along Wilshire, in the form of the 720.  They're at capacity despite the fact that they have effective headways of 90 seconds (!) during rush hours.  Bus-only lanes sound great in theory, but Wilshire isn't as wide as Santa Monica is and even assuming they were respected by LA drivers (they wouldn't be), turn-offs would be a nightmare.  We built a dedicated bus line in the Valley, the Orange Line, and it's already at capacity, only a few years after opening - a bus system along Wilshire would be overwhelmed at Day One.

If you review the scoping documents, BRT has always been one of the alternatives under consideration, and will be until a final decision is made, as has LRT like the red cars you describe (LRT had nearly no benefits along that corridor, as it would require a forced transfer at Western Av, would require a different technology between K-Town and Santa Monica, and would have a lower capacity that would probably be overwhelmed on Day One of service like the Orange Line in the Valley was).  To my knowledge BRT remains under consideration, and will be until the final decision is made, but will not be what's built because it lacks the necessary capacity for the crush loads along Wilshire and between Santa Monica/Beverly Hills and DTLA.

The earthquake issue is trotted out occasionally by people who don't know engineering well (no offense intended), but the reality is that's not as big of a problem as people think.  The Verrazano-Narrows bridge had to cope with wind, rail lines in Russia and northern China have to cope with extreme cold, etc. etc., and things still get built.  Tokyo has a greater earthquake risk than LA does, and they've done just fine - we're basically cribbing their seismic safety standards, and we're the better for it.

The LA subway thus far has been built with seismic safety in mind, and is built below the surface, where earthquakes are not as severe - the damage done in an earthquake is done when the tremors are released at the surface (probably the least safe place to be in the LA Metro system to be during an earthquake would be at the Blue Line portal just south of Downtown, or perhaps the Memorial Park station in Pasadena, both of which I suspect have been overbuilt to protect against any risks).  The line thus far has done just fine through Northridge (before revenue service began, but the tunnels were open and operational), and the subway stations themselves are heavily reinforced and are designed to limit overhead objects that could injure someone during an earthquake - from everything I've learned, I think the subway would probably be the safest place to be during a major earthquake.

Having said that, I do agree that a robust bus system has to supplement where subways can't be built due to infeasibility, lack of funds or lack of ridership, and LA's Metro Rapid service is probably the best bus service I've seen in the country.  I'd love to see the Rapids emulated in New York or Boston, but unfortunately I doubt we will.

---

by: auron renouille @ Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 00:24:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gang Up (0.00 / 0)

This situation is infuriating.  First these other areas are trying to keep from the Westside Subway moneys from the regional Measure R funds (and these same areas opposed Measure R !!!); now they're trying to keep the Westside Subway from federal funds.  Maddening!  

It's not just that the Westside has suffered from a lack of funds for transit to date and deserves a share - worse is that it's just plain good policy for the region.  

This post makes that point already.  More people come into the Westside every day than the number of people who travel within, or out from, the Westside.  The REGION needs people to move more efficiently in and out of the Westside.

---

by: SamSinister @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 21:06:19 PM UTC

I haven't watched the specifics (0.00 / 0)

But as a former resident of Pasadena, even, the Westside needs transit more without question. It doesn't just serve "rich people" - indeed, the Santa Monica area has a lot of jobs - that people commute to via interstate 10 from other areas - and it also has UCLA. The westside is perpetually clogged with traffic at all hours, and has few alternate routes.

The 210 corridor is getting worse, but it's not nearly as bad as the westside, and besides, there are several alternate routes.

Even if I still lived in Pasadena or further out in Azusa, say, I would still rather be able to drive to the Gold Line and then from there be able to take transit out to UCLA, to the Santa Monica Pier, or to the jobs I turned down on the westside because of the horrible commute.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

---

by: elfling @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 21:50:14 PM UTC

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

The Westside has a lot of jobs, which is why it is 1) so dense and 2) so choked with traffic.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 21:51:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This really drives me nuts (0.00 / 0)

You have a project that should have been built during the post-war boom or earlier, the Wilshire subway, competing with SGV extensions that might not even be viable.  Particularly, from what I've read (can find links if someone really wants), the 210 extension of the Gold Line is arguably not even a viable project in terms of ridership today.  It probably will be someday, but the Wilshire subway has been a viable project since Wilshire was more than a country road.

The constant war in LA of suburban v. urban and urban lower class v. urban middle class is just outrageous.

---

by: auron renouille @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 23:33:27 PM UTC

Yep (3.00 / 1)

There were some major missed opportunities on this. Sometime in the 1970s LA voters rejected a subway plan. In 1980 they finally approved it, but some NIMBYs flipped out when tunnelers hit a methane pocket along Wilshire and got Henry Waxman to write a federal law banning further construction of the Subway to the Sea. 20 crucial years were lost.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 23:52:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

(0.00 / 0)

The original 210-oriented Gold Line isn't a viable project in terms of ridership - if you look at the numbers it's like a fraction of the next closest, and in terms of passengers per dollar (either capital or operating) it's obscene. IIRC though, it passed through the districts of two of the more muckety mucks in the CA legislature, plus Dreier in Washington.

The southern leg into East LA makes more sense, and extending that even further might work, but even then it'd be a lower priority to subway to the sea.

As for why do it as a subway instead of Red Cars? Because the likely alignments will either be along Wilshire, which is the busiest surface street in LA, or along Sunset/Santa Monica/Melrose, which bear a lot of traffic at peak since the regional highway system was designed assuming the 2 was going to be a freeway decked over Santa Monica from the 101 to the 405. So Red Cars would get stuck in traffic (which is part of why people gave up on the Red Car lines there originally) and we already have bus lines there anyway.

Disclosure: I'm awesome.

---

by: Teralloy @ Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 01:32:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

I used to live along Wilshire, and I'm quite familiar w/ both the Red/"Purple" lines and the 720.  The 720 serves its purpose the best it can, and I'd hate to be an operator assigned to that route, but nobody who is even halfway serious proposes anything other than subway for Wilshire - afterall, the 720 has headways at peak of 90 seconds (!) at rush hour but it still packed to the rafters.  I'm not even aware of any NYC busses that have that frequency of headways (although of course the Broadway BMT and Lexington IRT carry more passengers).

There's the morons out there who keep yelling "Monorail!  Monorail!" at all of the scoping meetings I've attended (I'm a geek), but they've largely been ignored because there's literally no benefit for that.  The BRU (may they rot in Hell) keeps screaming about transit racism and bus-only lanes, but they have blissfully seemed to have lost relevance in the past couple of years.

This thing will either happen as, at a minimum, a continuation of the Purple Line along Wilshire, or not happen at all.  I'd love to see the WeHo triangle happen as part of this project, but I worry that doing it all in one shot may be trying to bite off too much at once.

A lot of people are ambivalent about Villaraigosa, but, having lived in a lot of other cities and seen how mayors are, at the end of the day, powerless, I've come to respect what Villaraigosa tries to do. He's no La Guardia, but he's doing good stuff.

I feel good about the Wilshire subway happening, and I almost feel like by trying to get both the Wilshire subway and the Santa Monica spur done at once, he's improving the odds for at least Wilshire - when it gets to the Feds and Sacramento and the suburban and rural bureaucrats start trying to split the baby, it's more likely that at least part of the project will survive.

---

by: auron renouille @ Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 00:06:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]