Metro Pink Line

[cph]

The Metro Pink Line would run along Santa Monica Blvd between Downtown LA and Santa Monica. (Most likely all-subway, so this would be a long way off....)

Here is a map of the route, along with a few other proposals:
* Green Line extension to Santa Monica via Lincoln
* Purple Line to Santa Monica via Wilshire
* Expo (Aqua) Line
* Elson's "Peach Line" in the La Brea-Crenshaw-LAX corridor
* Existing Red and Blue lines



Comments?

[whitmanlam]

The Pink Line runs through West Hollywood... who woulda thought...

[Mac]

The line could be at grade along Stanta Monica Blvd, other than that, its gonna be hard constructing this line without boring.

[LAofAnaheim]

How about having the Pink Line & Purple Line sharing a direct connection at Century City and the Pink Line then diverting further south to hit the Westside Pavilion and terminate at Abbot Kinney in Venice Beach? We're giving Santa Monica a ton of credit by having all the westside lines terminate near 3rd street. Santa Monica is great and all, but it would be nice if lines actually terminated at other beaches.

[whitmanlam]

Perhaps the Pink Line can turn North along PCH and go to Malibu ?? I know alot of Pepperdine students would love to ride that.

[vnc]

Well. I think this would be good. Or how about putting a Streetcar style Light Rail Vehicles. Like the ones being using in Portland, Tacoma and soon in Seattle, WA which are using some very nice looking Light Rail Vehicles. From an outfit called Inekon Group in the Cezch Republic. But could it on Venice Blvd

[kenalpern]

It looks nice, but at Centinela there are enough convergent lines that more than a single subway would be cost-prohibitive. Frankly, the critical goal of any subway west of the 405 is to allow access from one side of the freeway to the other. Beyond that, a streetcar or even rapid bus setup west of the 405 on Santa Monica would probably do the trick.

[whitmanlam]

I think in the future, an alternative to the 405 will be needed. The 405 has been widened all it can. We need a rail line that can bypass the constant gridlock on the freeway, hopefully a line that can parallel the 405 from LAX to Van Nuys. Through the Sepulveda pass. Never slowing down to look at all the cars it passes.

[tonyw79sfv]

Sadly, there's nothing on Metro's radar yet concerning a line paralleling the 405. If the Expo, Purple, Pink, and Peach line are done, all access to the Westside will be done via Hollywood, just like the old Pacific Electric system. There was no Sepulveda Pass rail line in the PE system, and when there is one in the future, it would be a new rail line not following a legacy PE route (unlike how most of our Metro Rail and transitway follows).

[erict]

There are plans for a "busway" along the 405 I thought. Sad but true - it is in the constrained long range transit plan.

[Adrian Auer-Hudson]

The "Pink" line I would suggest does not need to reach Downtown Los Angeles. It could usefully go to Hollywood & Highland. That way, with only one change, Valleyites would have a shortcut to the Westside.

[Elson]

cph said:

The Metro Pink Line would run along Santa Monica Blvd between Downtown LA and Santa Monica. (Most likely all-subway, so this would be a long way off....)

Here is a map of the route, along with a few other proposals:
* Green Line extension to Santa Monica via Lincoln
* Purple Line to Santa Monica via Wilshire
* Expo (Aqua) Line
* Elson's "Peach Line" in the La Brea-Crenshaw-LAX corridor
* Existing Red and Blue lines



Comments?

Does Santa Monica's population and density warrant four separate lines on four separate alignments terminating there???

This Pink Line should just transfer to the Purple Line at Westwood and veer north towards the Valley. Two heavy rail lines going into Santa Monica on two physically separate alignments is not only overkill, but financially impossible.

There's also a service gap between LAX and Westwood that should be addressed, especially one that can connect three lines.

[Elson]

adrianauerhudson said:

The "Pink" line I would suggest does not need to reach Downtown Los Angeles. It could usefully go to Hollywood & Highland. That way, with only one change, Valleyites would have a shortcut to the Westside.

I agree, it should also serve the Sunset Strip area as well.

[Mac]

elson said:

Does Santa Monica's population and density warrant four separate lines on four separate alignments terminating there???

This Pink Line should just transfer to the Purple Line at Westwood and veer north towards the Valley. Two heavy rail lines going into Santa Monica on two physically separate alignments is not only overkill, but financially impossible.

There's also a service gap between LAX and Westwood that should be addressed, especially one that can connect three lines.

I don't think Santa Monica needs that many rail lines. I think some should go down to Venice, or other beaches along the coast. It seems as though as we are so focused on having every east-west line west of Union Station terminate at Santa Monica.

[Adrian Auer-Hudson]

"Pink Line"certainly does not need its own route into Santa Monica. At Westwood it can head down Sepulveda then use Expo into Santa Monica.

[wad]

adrianauerhudson said:

"Pink Line"certainly does not need its own route into Santa Monica. At Westwood it can head down Sepulveda then use Expo into Santa Monica.

The problem is that we don't have the all-purpose rail car yet. Most Pink Line proposals call for it to branch off from the Hollywood/Highland Station, so they'd use subway cars.

The Pink Line could branch north to UCLA. Riders can transfer between Purple and Pink lines at Century City.

[Adrian Auer-Hudson]

wad said:

adrianauerhudson said:

"Pink Line"certainly does not need its own route into Santa Monica. At Westwood it can head down Sepulveda then use Expo into Santa Monica.

The problem is that we don't have the all-purpose rail car yet. Most Pink Line proposals call for it to branch off from the Hollywood/Highland Station, so they'd use subway cars.

The Pink Line could branch north to UCLA. Riders can transfer between Purple and Pink lines at Century City.

Point taken, however, I don’t believe the Pink Line should be a heavy rail branch off the Red Line. My view is that the Red Line should have two branches in the Valley. One branch should go to Bob Hope Airport; the other should follow an East - West Blvd, probably Sherman Way. There is a limit to the number of trains that can be pushed thru the Union Station to Vermont section.

Better, in my view, to have the "Pink Line" be a light rail line. It should start in a tunnel adjacent to Hollywood and Highland Red Line platforms. It should continue below grade to Santa Monica Blvd and onwards to Beverly Hills.

Somewhere in Beverly Hills the line can transition to an "El". From thence it can continue as such to Sepulveda. It will transition to a surface route as it joins Expo with a flying junction.

[Elson]

The Pink Line doesn't need to be a direct branch of the Red Line. It would be extremely costly (not to mention hamper existing operation) to re-engineer the tunnel west of Hollywood/Highland to allow switch tracks. At the east side of the station there's a mezzanine section that goes nowhere, it's there to allow for a future portal entry. Why not interface this with a pedestrian tunnel going to the terminus of a Pink Line? That way the stations can interface without building a costly transfer. And the Pink Line could still be light rail.

[cph]

The Santa Monica Blvd. route west of Century City would be something for the distant future, long after the Expo and Purple Lines (and other lines in the county) are completed...

I-405/Sepulveda needs its own line, I may draw another map of how that would look like (once I find time...)

[Dan Wentzel]

elson said:

I agree, it should also serve the Sunset Strip area as well.

Regrettably, I disagree. Choosing Sunset over Santa Monica any further west than Fairfax is a big mistake, in my opinion.

I know that there are some people who imagine taking rail to their nightclubs on Sunset, but it's a mistaken use of rail resource to build it there at this time. It's not that its a bad idea. It's just that its not the best use of resources and it shouldn't be considered anywhere near the top or even mid-level of priorities now.. In fact, from a grid perspective, Sunset should have to wait in line not only behind Wilshire and Santa Monica, but Beverly Blvd. (where the Grove/BeverlyCenter/CedarSinai can be accessed).

The City of West Hollywood have it made it clear they wish to see a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment.

Unless you want the City of West Hollywood arguing on the opposite side for building the proposed line, when many in WeHo are wanting to run on SMB form LaBrea to San Vicente completely bypassing the Sunset Strip, only one stop max would be politically feasible, and that may be Fairfax/Sunset, but it a longshot.

The recent MTA Westside Extention Transit Corridor Maps showed Santa Monica Blvd. not Sunset as the alernative alignment west of Fairfax and rightly so.

Having the Purple Line on Wilshire via Century City is great. Having a second line extending southwest from the Hollywood/Highland station, heavy or light rail, would be a dream come true for most us. However, people wanting to go to the Whiskey and the Roxy will have to advocate for a better bus service to begin with before getting a rail going directly there. Right now Santa Monica Blvd is the 4th busiest bus corridor in the county and Sunset isn't even supporting an all day limited bus line. There are LOTS of bad traffic spots, all of which their users would see the need for a rail alternative, and perhaps meritoriously so in a dream world. Traffic on the Sunset Strip is bad at times. So is traffic around Cedar Sinai, Beverly Center and the Grove, and even more so on Santa Monica Blvd. The Pink Line cannot go to ALL of these places. It's not that an alignment along the Sunset Strip is not a "bad' idea. It just has to be considered one of the lowest of all the possible priorities right now. That's tough for any advocate of service going near what they want to hear and I say it regrettably.

Sunset Strip's best chances for a stop at all are Sunset/Fairfax. As for the "Sunset Strip West" stop put on the Siilver Line map at Get L.A. Moving, forget it. I, along with many other people, and the City of West Hollywood, will join in the protests to get that stop moved back to the much more needed Santa Monica Blvd. where it belongs.

----------

On another note, Bevelry Hills seems at this time to prefer a Wilshire alignment. instead of one at their Civic Center on SMB This leads to the possible alternative of instead of a direct line route from H/H to Century City, a possible Santa Monica Blvd. alignment going from LaBrea or Sunset westward, then heading south via La Cienega or San Vicente. It could then go west toward Century City again if heavy rail.

If light rail, it could even go down San Vicente all the way to a Crenshaw LRT as one project. I'm excited there was more than expected support shown for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment going west from H/H as reported by Jody Litvak in a recent City Beat interview. I still think the Wilshire alignment will get prioritized first as it probably should be, but I wish both would be built at the same time.

[gibiscus]

I see great potential for using the West Hollywood bus yard, at least the part fronting Santa Monica Blvd, as a TOD should a subway come there. It would be great if the whole bus yard could be used connecting all the way to the Pacific Design Center, but it's probably too hard to find an alternate site in that area.

[gibiscus]

If this line was completed as a branch of the Red Line and the Silver Line is completed and extended west on Santa Monica, once the Silver Line reaches West Hollywood, instead of replicating the line down to Beverly Hills, it go on Holloway to a Sunset Strip terminus. There could also be a local trolley down the Sunset Strip.

[Dan Wentzel]

gibiscus said:

If this line was completed as a branch of the Red Line and the Silver Line is completed and extended west on Santa Monica, once the Silver Line reaches West Hollywood, instead of replicating the line down to Beverly Hills, it go on Holloway to a Sunset Strip terminus. There could also be a local trolley down the Sunset Strip.

A trolley or streetcar, like the F Line in San Francisco on Market Street, down the strip is an inspired idea.

Unfortunately, the "Silver Line" seems pretty inactive at the moment. (I hope I am wrong about that.)

Their original map I saw on the Friends of the Silver Line website had the Western terminus at Santa Monica and Vermont, which is a shame, because they could have used Westside enthusiasm for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment to rally support for the whole thing.

[Dan Wentzel]

www.westsidecities.org/meetings/20071115_Item9B.pdf

Here's a link to a letter from West Hollywood City Manager Paul Arevalo to Metro dated 10/29/07 RE Support and Scoping of Westside Subway Extension Project.

Santa Monica Blvd., not Sunset Blvd., is where the political support will be, and I agree with that. Although a Fairfax/Sunset stop is certainly the best argument for a stop somewhere on the Strip.

[Mac]

Another idea could be the "Hollywood Loop" which is proposed by Marty here: thetransitcoalition.us/ConMC01.htm

[Dan Wentzel]

mac said:

Another idea could be the "Hollywood Loop" which is proposed by Marty here: thetransitcoalition.us/ConMC01.htm

That's a very interesting idea. Of course, it has the same flaw as Get L.A. Moving's map, which is choosing Sunset over Santa Monica Blvd. But the Hollywood Loop could easily modified to put it back on Santa Monica Blvd. where the political support will be.

[damiengoodmon]

The decision to route the line under Sunset instead of under Santa Monica was deliberate, and goes far beyond the clubs/tourist attraction. To begin with, Santa Monica Blvd is much wider and presents opportunities for bus only lanes and a trolley (with stations spaced every 0.25-0.5 miles). Comparatively, Sunset doesn't have as many great options, and instead has lots of difficulties. Among them are the hill, which presents connectivity issues for pedestrians and cyclists, and the abundance of 7-15 buildings (due to the hill/views) many of them offices that cause loads of traffic. People are essentially forced to drive there during the morning and evening (for work) and at night (for clubbing) creating mobility problems that ripple throughout the westside almost all day. Additionally, the natural attraction (views) are more likely to encourage as much high rise development on the hill as will be allowed by the movie stars who live in the mansions in the Santa Monica mountains behind them, further exacerbating the problem.

It's important to note that between La Brea and Century City (a distance of 5 miles), there are four stations on Santa Monica Blvd: Century City (Purple), Santa Monica/Wishire (Purple), Santa Monica/San Vicente (Silver), and Santa Monica/La Brea (Peach). So it isn't a question of whether to serve Santa Monica Blvd or not, it's a question of how and whether Sunset could be served as well all in the context of a regional transit system. Right now this discussion on the Westside Corridor study like all MTA studies is outside the context of regional connectivity/countywide transit system.

And of course the City of West Hollywood favors an alignment down Santa Monica Blvd. Have you taken a look at the West Hollywood city borders?

[Dan Wentzel]

damiengoodmon said:

It's important to note that between La Brea and Century City (a distance of 5 miles), there are four stations on Santa Monica Blvd: Century City (Purple), Santa Monica/Wishire (Purple), Santa
Monica/San Vicente (Silver), and Santa Monica/La Brea (Peach). So it isn't a question of whether to serve Santa Monica Blvd or not, it's a question of how and whether Sunset could be served as well all in the context of a regional transit system. Right now this discussion on the Westside Corridor study like all MTA studies is outside the context of regional connectivity/countywide transit system.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, and I appreciate your explaination of why Get L.A. Moving did made that choice and it's a well reasoned one, but I think it is a mistake and politically implausible, as the city involved is going to argue for the another choice (and rightly so, IMO.)

While there are 4 Santa Monica Blvd. stops in the Get L.A. moving plan, they don't actually go into the heart of West Hollywood where the city would want them, (i.e. Fairfax/Santa Monica and LaCienega/Santa Monica), nor do they take into account the unique Southwest/Northeast trajectory of Santa Monica Blvd that will help people go from the east San Fernando Valley to the Westside.

Furthermore, more people can walk to the Santa Monica Blvd. stops north/south than the lower density surrounding Sunset west of Fairfax.

The MTA was right to have Santa Monica and not Sunset west of Fairfax as potential alignments on their recent Westside Transit Corridor Extension map on where possible alignments should go.

Sunset may not have as many "options", but it also doesn't have as many riders. Right now Sunset doesn't even support an all day limited bus, whereas Santa Monica Blvd. is the 4th busiest bus corridor in the city. Bus Only Lanes on Santa Monica, while welcome, would not take advantage of the potential speed that rail will on this corridor.

Ask people who live, work and play in this area where they want the line to go and they will say Santa Monica Blvd., not Sunset.

And of course the City of West Hollywood favors an alignment down Santa Monica Blvd. Have you taken a look at the West Hollywood city borders?

The fact that the City of West Hollywood wants the line there does not mean they are not right.

It's clear the Get L.A. Moving map is well thought out and I am sure everything was chosen carefully and I greatly appreciate that. However, the Sunset Blvd. choice is one that I strongly disagree with, the City of West Hollywood will disagree with, and imagine will win less support from stakeholders who show up at public forums.

Everyone will of course have the chance to lobby for where they believe the line should ideally go, should we even be lucky enough for a possible second additional alignment option to the obvious choice of Wilshire Blvd.

[damiengoodmon]

First, and Metro has not done a good job of explaining this, the purpose of the lines/stations on the "potential alignments" map are not to finalize alignment, but more or less get people to choose which major arterial to serve. If the Santa Monica alignment is chosen, which I doubt, discussion will take place of where the transition down to Santa Monica will occur (one station or two on Sunset). Just as if the Wilshire alignment is chosen, discussion will take place about the possibility of stations at The Grove/CBS/Farmers Market and Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center.

If the objective of the Silver Line was to serve Century City en route to Santa Monica as a part of the major east-west transit line in the city, then Santa Monica Blvd makes more sense than Sunset. But that is not the purpose of the Silver Line, unlike the Westside Corridor subway. The Silver Line is about 4 lines connected into one as part of an overall system that attempts to alleviate existing traffic nightmares and aid regional planning, among other objectives.

Again, I reiterate the Westside Corridor study (like others) is not being conducted in the context of a regional transit plan that will be funded. The problems with this have been stated ad nauseum by myself and many others throughout this board and are always a topic of discussion. Simply, West Hollywood isn't being presented with a Santa Monica Blvd subway or the Get LA Moving Plan (Silver line with stations, Peach line with station, Purple line nearby, with a local circulator trolley or bus-only lane connecting the Santa Monica Blvd stations). WeHo is being presented with a subway under Wilshire or Santa Monica. Given the fact that Santa Monica is actually within their city boundaries the choice is obvious.

And yes the 4/704 is a very high ridership bus line. But the bulk of that ridership comes from east of West Hollywood. That's not to say that ridership for a subway wouldn't be there, just that current bus ridership is more attributable to people hoping on and off east of La Brea, than west of La Brea.

The whole discussion of where to put the east-west line between the Red Line and Purple line, in the area it needs to serve most (between La Brea and Hoover) is an interesting one.

[Dan Wentzel]

damiengoodmon said:

The decision to route the line under Sunset instead of under Santa Monica was deliberate, and goes far beyond the clubs/tourist attraction. To begin with, Santa Monica Blvd is much wider and presents opportunities for bus only lanes and a trolley (with stations spaced every 0.25-0.5 miles). Comparatively, Sunset doesn't have as many great options, and instead has lots of difficulties. Among them are the hill, which presents connectivity issues for pedestrians and cyclists, and the abundance of 7-15 buildings (due to the hill/views) many of them offices that cause loads of traffic. People are essentially forced to drive there during the morning and evening (for work) and at night (for clubbing) creating mobility problems that ripple throughout the westside almost all day. Additionally, the natural attraction (views) are more likely to encourage as much high rise development on the hill as will be allowed by the movie stars who live in the mansions in the Santa Monica mountains behind them, further exacerbating the problem.

All of the major roads on the westside, Sunset, Santa Monica, La Cienega, San Vicente, Beverly, Melrose, LaBrea, Fairfax have serious traffic problems which have a ripple effect on mobility. Sunset Blvd. is not special in this regard. My friend Stuart chooses to drives on Sunset instead of Santa Monica Blvd. when heading west from Hollywood because it has LESS traffic.

The question of a rail alignment between the Red and Purple Line going southwest is one of where it could do the MOST good. It's not that Sunset Blvd. is a bad idea as much as it is far from the best of the good choices.

Also, the whole idea building a rail line because of high density development that "could" be built there precludes that while this Sunset development was happening, there would not also be greater high-density development occurring on Santa Monica Blvd. at the same time maintaining its ratio as the more heavily traveled corridor, and that this new Sunset Blvd. high-density development would be built over the wishes of NIMBYs near the Strip, when the people who live near Santa Monica Blvd. WANT a rail line.

That's a very BIG presumption, especially when you have the City of West Hollywood saying, "build here, build here, build here" on Santa Monica, instead of the "not here, not here, not here" we are likely to hear from NIMBYs living near the strip.

People who want rail service for the Sunset Strip will have a better shot advocating for a Fairfax/Sunset stop on the eastern part of the strip located in the City of Los Angeles. Sunset Strip West would go in the City of West Hollywood's portion of Sunset Blvd. and will generate opposition from the City itself, if that is at the expense of their desired stops at LaCienega/Crescent Heights.

It's also quite a leap to believe that "as much development will be allowed" will eventually justify putting the alignment on Sunset in the first place. So, ignore the development that's already happened and is happening for development that may or may not happen? It is precisely because of those spectacular views that there won't be as much high-density development likely to built to justify putting a rail line there, when there isn't even an all-day express bus at the moment.

Wilshire is the major east-west corridor that needs to be built (spurring into Century City), obviously. However, Santa Monica Blvd. was the originally alignment for the Red Cars and it used to be famous Route 66 as well. It's a strong second.

I'm imagining with humor watching someone go into a transit forum in West Hollywood or to a meeting with the Westside Council of Governments arguing against putting a rail alignment on Santa Monica Blvd. in favor of Sunset Blvd. for development that may or may not occur at some point in the future -- and then watching the looks on their faces as they are being told that Santa Monica Blvd. can have a bus-only lane instead.

I'll lend you an umbrella to shield you from the tomatoes.

If we ever get to the point that the MTA gets serious about a second alignment to the Wilshire one, which is on my short-term "dream map", we can consider ourselves lucky that this argument is finally more than academic.

Again, I reiterate the Westside Corridor study (like others) is not being conducted in the context of a regional transit plan that will be funded. The problems with this have been stated ad nauseum by myself and many others throughout this board and are always a topic of discussion.

I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be any thought to an overall regional transit plan that will be funded and that there should be.

However, that doesn't mean that those of us who think that the alignment should be on Santa Monica Blvd. instead of Sunset west of La Brea aren't thinking regionally or long-term or in the best interests of everyone. We may just have a different conclusion on what's in the best interests of the region and present and future transit stakeholders.