MTA map with possible alignments

[Dan Wentzel]

My heart leaps with joy to see this map.

I'm so glad a Santa Monica alignment is being taken seriously by the MTA.

From LAist:

The trend found in the 450 comments received by Metro from the public was that heavy rail subway was the preferred mode and the consensus want it to be Wilshire Blvd. Well, they said they wanted both Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. done, but Wilshire first, something that Metro did not expect -- that people found both routes necessary.

Build the Wilshire Blvd. alginment, then the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment. The chance to travel from the Valley directly to the Westside is exciting too.

Yay! I'm in a spectacular mood today.

[bobdavis]

I remember a public meeting regarding what we now call the Purple Line back in the 80's--one participant was quite upset that the original plan did not call for a station at Crenshaw. Looks like his concern has been addressed.

[Tony Fernandez]

In the LA Times article, Jody Litvak was quoted as saying that a lot of people want both alignments. I think this is great and that eventually we need both alignments, but if we must pick one for right now, let's make it Wilshire. We'll see how it goes at these next set of meetings.

[kenalpern]

This is, overall, great news. My own $.02 is that the only thing for certain is the initial push to Century City via Wilshire Blvd., and that that should be the initial operating segment when this project is built. I also very, very much want to see a connecting Crenshaw north-south light rail subway section that connects to the Wilshire Subway at some point, despite the fact that the initial segment of a putative Crenshaw line would likely not be built north of the Expo Light Rail Line.

A potential list of Subway Segments:

MOS-1: Wilshire/Western to Century City

MOS-2: Century City to Wilshire/Bundy (maybe to the beach, but I really don't know if this is necessary or cost-effective west of Bundy)

MOS-3: Connecting Hollywood/Highlandto Wilshire/Santa Monica via Santa Monica Blvd. (I really don't know if a second Santa Monica Blvd. subway is needed before some north-south alignments at this point)

MOS-4: Subway extension of a Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail to Hollywood/Highland

MOS-5: North-South Heavy Rail Subway under Sepulveda/405 Corridor from Valley to Expo Light Rail Line

MOS-6: North-South Heavy Rail Subway under Sepulveda/405 Corridor from Expo Light Rail Line to LAX (probably Century/Aviation)

I imagine that there would be a heckuva fight to determine the "correct" order of MOS-4, MOS-5, and MOS-6, so I'll just say up front that I don't care which one should go "first" because they're all needed sooner or later, and I envision that they'll be the next big battles once the Expo and Wilshire Subway Projects are completed.

[jejozwik]

A new fact sheet on possible alignments has come out.

[Dan Wentzel]

So we can discuss the specifics that transit enthusiasts like us really enjoy, here is the text from the new MTA fact sheet:

----------------------------

Summary of Public Comments:

The overwhelming majority of comments received supported the urgent need for a transit improvement on the Westside. A potential Wilshire subway alignment was the most favored route and mode, with nearly as many people advocating for subways on both the Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard alignments. In many cases, where the public supported both the Wilshire and the Santa Monica alignments, most thought that the Wilshire alignment should take precedence. Some support was expressed for aerial/monorail, light rail, or bus rapid transit modes.

Mode:

The community greatly supported a potential subway mode i.e. heavy rail below grade: Most of those in favor of a subway did not give a reason for their preference. Those that did express a reason for this mode indicated speed of travel, ability to move large numbers of people, limited impact to road traffic, etc. Those favoring options other than subway cited cost and length of time to construct. Those preferring monorail or light rail expressed the view that these modes were less expensive and quicker to build.

Subway - Yes 262 - No 8
Aerial/Monorail - Yes 22 - No 1
LRT - Yes 18 - No 8
BRT - Yes 14 - No 22

Potential Station Locations:

Several potential station locations along Wilshire (11) and Santa Monica (12) Boulevards were presented during early scoping.
Many comments received provided suggestions for stations at other locations, or noted support or concerns about possible
station locations. The public’s most favored station locations include:

1. Century City (31)
2. UCLA (22)
3. Connecting to the Exposition LRT (14)
4. City of Beverly Hills (13)
5. Connecting to a North/South transit line (12)
6. Tied (11)
a. Beverly Center
b. City of Santa Monica
c. Santa Monica Boulevard
7. City of West Hollywood (10)
8. Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai (9)
9. Wilshire/Westwood (8)
10. Tied (7)
a. Avenue of the Stars
b. Constellation
c. Crenshaw Boulevard
d. La Brea Ave
e. Los Angeles World Airport (LAX)
f. Westwood

Public comments showed that the community recognizes the economic benefits of key station locations. They especially
expressed the importance of connecting job centers to housing, and to ensure that station locations and design blend with the
neighborhood.

Alignments:

The public was presented with two potential alignment options, generally following Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards. Overall, a Wilshire Boulevard alignment, extending westward from the Metro Purple Line at Wilshire/Western, received the greatest amount of support. 49 people voiced support for a Santa Monica Boulevard alignment extending westward from Hollywood. Over 50 people asked that both
alignments be considered.

Wilshire - Yes 107 - No 3
Santa Monica - Yes 49 - No 1
Both - Yes 52 - No 9

From the public comments received, there is a strong sense that connections with other transit lines and modes are important. Several suggested that Metro consider north/south alignments providing better linkage with the San Fernando Valley, and,
connections to Los Angeles World and Burbank Airports.

[Dan Wentzel]

Here is the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment with a direct link into the Valley.

Of the proposed alignments, three are Wilshire only, five are Santa Monica only and several are "combined", meaning both.

I am supporting Option 9 and am encouraging others to do so. (The MTA seems to realize that Wilshire is considered the higher priority).

I think a combined option is more saleable than a one-line option. In this Option, the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment has a direct link into the Valley. The LAist called this NoHo to Century City in 14 minutes. I used to drive from North Hollywood to Century City every day and on a good day it took me 45 minutes and on an average day it took me an hour. This Santa Monica Blvd. alignment has potential not just east/west, but north/south. It creates a viable alternative for people commuting to/from the Valley and Westside instead of snaking through the canyons or passes. The Valley residents would be supportive of a combined project because they see their own interest in it.

I will be writing to Valley politicians asking them to support the combined proposal. I realize this isn't a substitute for a Sepulveda Pass line, but some people will be travelling to/from the West Valley and some to/from the East Valley. "The Valley" is not a monolithic entitty to be served by one line.

I also like the "transit triangle" this would create. People would refer to living or working within the "triangle".

In any event, the combined proposal #9 is the best I see on offer, AND I think it is the most politically marketable too.

[masonite]

dantheman99 said:

In any event, the combined proposal #9 is the best I see on offer, AND I think it is the most politically marketable too.

The bigger question may be whether alternative #1 or #14 is the best route. All things being equal like travel times and costs, I would go with #14. However, if the costs and travel times increase a lot I would rather go with #1. Also, I wonder how the trains will be able to make a 90 degree turn at the Fairfax station?

The SM Blvd. line seems worthy of eventually being built, but we won't have the money for decades for this if ever. Also, it doesn't seem too efficient to have 3 subway lines but there would be a lot of crossover on some of the stations.

[JerardWright]

masonite said:

The bigger question may be whether alternative #1 or #14 is the best route. All things being equal like travel times and costs, I would go with #14. However, if the costs and travel times increase a lot I would rather go with #1. Also, I wonder how the trains will be able to make a 90 degree turn at the Fairfax station?

I'd go with #14 and 16 with the one note that the Wilshire/Crenshaw is eliminated so that between La Brea and Western the trains could go to 70mph thus making up the time it take to make the diversion to Farmers Market/Grove and Beverly Cetner/Cedars Sinai.

[metrocenter]

BTW, for those that haven't seen it, this document shows all the alternatives in detail.

[warrenbowman]

I am liking Combined Alternative #9 a lot!

[BRinSM]

I know that these maps are only showing hypothetical alignments and station locations, but if one or both of these lines are actually implemented, please tell me that there is potential for more statoins. Obviously we want the line to run efficiently, but at the same time, there need to be stations for people to walk to from their homes and businesses. If not, there better be plenty of space for bicycles on the trains.

[Dan Wentzel]

Well, now is the time to advocate for the stations you support. There will probably be fewer stations than on the average limited/rapid bus. It's important for stations to be at destinations.

In addition to prospective alignments, now is the time to indicate which stations one supports. Some of us have submitted to the MTA not only our preferred alignments, but also our list of preferred station stops.

[D]

Ken, your post makes me drool! We need something that will let us build this ASAP. would the best way to come up with money be a citywide tax?

[kenalpern]

Thanks for the kind words, D. I think it'll be a combination of getting past the other light rail projects before the subway--Expo, Downtown Connector, Crenshaw, maybe Green and Foothill Gold--and getting a powerful source of new funds to pay for all these lines sooner and not later.

A half-cent sales tax is probably the first thing that's needed, as well as an overdue gas tax hike...but a decrease to 55% for future transportation tax/bond measures is perhaps what's needed most of all.

Yet I caution you that I am (like so many of us, regardless of political affiliation) hesitant to spend gobs of money without making sure it's spent well. Too much money too fast, unfortunately, can lead to silly and wasteful spending that creates the blowback that happened with the first portion of the subway.

[kingsfan]

Ken,

I agree with your sentiments completely. This is a long-term project and the money must be wisely spent.

I guess the one thing I still don't understand is why the MTA doesn't try to off-set some of the massive cost of the subway with development agreements with private landowners. Look at what the NoHo station has done for residential and commercial development in that community. Why doesn't MTA simply go to to the next logical subway stop, and work the City to agree to a huge density bonus in return for the developer putting the subway station below said development ? MTA's sole cost would then be the cost of tunneling. THe MTA could do this all of the way to Valencia on the North, Santa Monica on the West, and Woodland Hills in the Valley.

I realize my suggestions are overly simplistic, but I do know a subway station is far cheaper to build when the developer is creating a hole in the ground anyway. It is also a fair way to determine if the City of Santa Monica is really willing to absorb some of the cost of the Subway to the Sea, or whether they are looking from a free ride with no future development along Wilshire, something I strongly suspect.

Call me crazy, but I think there is a way to get this subway built without breaking the bank or crowding out all other worthwhile projects.

[bluelineshawn]

First the MTA would have to buy the property and then lease it to a developer for that to happen. They can make money back by getting a density bonus, but I can't imagine that it would be enough to pay for a station. These types of ideas do need to be explored. Also adding retail to and above the stations should be explored.

[kingsfan]

I don' think the MTA should be buying property, nor do I think it is necessary.

But I do think the MTA can approach Mayor V, and ask the City to grant a developer a density bonus or zoning variance in return for that developer including a subway station. The MTA should scout the locations and find the developer and act as an intermediary with the City.

To me this ideas seems like a win for everyone, including the City, the MTA and the Developer. Neighboring property owners may scream, but in reality their property will benefit greatly from the subway station.

[JerardWright]

I agree with you on that regards, because they would need permission from the city to do this work anyways so it's actually in the cities interest to build transit in this fashion because they'll stick to the area in general, possibly add a new pot of $$$ from the CRA and instead of building strip/shopping malls the redevelopment comes in the form of the transit.

[bluelineshawn]

kingsfan said:

I don' think the MTA should be buying property, nor do I think it is necessary.

But I do think the MTA can approach Mayor V, and ask the City to grant a developer a density bonus or zoning variance in return for that developer including a subway station. The MTA should scout the locations and find the developer and act as an intermediary with the City.

To me this ideas seems like a win for everyone, including the City, the MTA and the Developer. Neighboring property owners may scream, but in reality their property will benefit greatly from the subway station.

I don't know why a developer would want to go this route. If someone owns property they are going to want to be compensated for someone else using it. I don't see being allowed to build denser as sufficient compensation, but I could be wrong. Not only are they losing the use of the land beneath whatever they build, but they are taking on the risk of any problems or delays caused by station construction. Besides IIRC the LA planning commission already created new rules allowing for denser development next to transit stations.

[kingsfan]

Density is everything to a developer, and a density bonus could easily double or triple to value of a project.

The City can also offer other carrots, such as Traffic Mitigation, expediting the Planning and Plan Check process, property tax breaks, etc.

I'll give a great example of a potential missed opportunity: The Fed's plan to expand their building in Westwood. Instead of objecting to the project outright, why didn't someone say yes, so long as the Fed's pay for 100% of the subway station in Westwood ?

[wad]

kingsfan said:

why didn't someone say yes, so long as the Fed's pay for 100% of the subway station in Westwood ?

Two problems that immediately pop up:

1. It would require the coordination of several federal bureaucracies, and it would be a challenge to reconcile the funding arrangements.

2. Where are the costs "framed"? In other words, are the costs imputed into the federal building construction, or are they separated with one bundle coming through the FTA or elsewhere? The problem with the former is that it will make the expansion of the federal building red meat for the "budget hawks". It also leads to setting bad precedents, such as the Century Freeway/Green Line deal that was planning by consent decree. The problem with the latter is that FTA would give L.A. a special dispensation, and you can very well bet every other transit system in the country will try the same thing.

[jejozwik]

if anyone is interested. i have the full resolution uncompressed maps from the mta for all alternatives. let me know if you want them