Metro Pink Line

[damiengoodmon]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

What GLAM suggests is serving Santa Monica (with 4 stations on Santa Monica Blvd over 5 miles) AND serving Sunset (the Strip).

Regarding Sunset, you spent much of you post focusing on future development, conveniently overlooking that I pointed out the fact that existing conditions support rail. This includes lots of existing 7-15 story buildings, in addition to the regional entertainment attractions.

Regarding future development I believe that the 4 GLAM stations on Santa Monica Blvd would encourage near the same level of development on Santa Monica Blvd as a Santa Monica Blvd alignment. Add a local circulator trolley and I just don't understand how this can be denied. The difference is GLAM serves Sunset/the Strip as well. The alternative (Santa Monica), eliminates the possibility of serving Sunset. Trolley is not much of an option on Sunset.

Again, GLAM is advocacy for a regional system. The cost estimates, alignments, stations placements, etc. are based on adoption of a regional plan, not simply individual lines. It's intended to be evaluated in that perspective. Put a "Sunset line" alone against a Santa Monica line would be a battle - I agree. Put the GLAM plan (with a SM local circulator) against a Santa Monica line alone, and I like GLAM's chances.

[Dan Wentzel]

damiengoodmon said:

Regarding Sunset, you spent much of you post focusing on future development, conveniently overlooking that I pointed out the fact that existing conditions support rail. This includes lots of existing 7-15 story buildings, in addition to the regional entertainment attractions.

We will have to agree to disagree. Reasonable people can have the same facts and come to different conclusions.

I mentioned future development on Sunset because you used that in your argument, and as for the present, you completely overstate the existing conditions for rail on Sunset today as compared to other corridors. There are lots of roads where the existing conditions would support a rail project and which would be popular. There are lots of roads on the Westside that have destinations people would like to travel to. The point is to pick the best one. Why pick a lower ridership choice like Sunset when there are better ones on offer?

However, if you really want to see better transit on Sunset, which is a laudable goal, start with lobbying for an all day express bus.

When Sunset can support that, then begin to think of rail for the strip. If anything, Sunset should get in line behind Beverly Blvd. from a grid standpoint.

If there is going to be a connector between Hollywood/Highland going southwest to reach the Purple Line at some point, it needs go where it will be of most use and most useful.

Put the GLAM plan (with a SM local circulator) against a Santa Monica line alone, and I like GLAM's chances.

Well, you know what, I'll take that bet!

If the Pink Line or "Silver Line" in your system were taken up seriously, there is no change that a circulator would be proposed at the same time. And, if it were offered first, the argument would be why isn't it a "real" line, and it, if it were offered at the same time or after a Sunset Blvd. rail alignment, the City of West Hollywood would howl at the perceived "better" line going to the corridor with lower ridership and lower potential use.

A local circulator will not be seen as an acceptable substitute on Santa Monica Blvd, nor should it. Perhaps the western portion of the Sunset Strip can be served with some quaint trolley or something involving Holloway.

When the time comes where the MTA takes this area seriously, which all of us hope is sooner rather than later, I look forward to us respectfully but fervently arguing on opposite sides of the issue.

The difference is I will actually have the elected officials and a majority transit stakeholders in this area arguing with me for Santa Monica Blvd..

[damiengoodmon]

dantheman99 said:

The difference is I will actually have the elected officials and a majority transit stakeholders in this area arguing with me for Santa Monica Blvd..

Who will need dollars from throughout the region and thereby regional support to build anything. ;D

Tunneling under either would not be cheap. To build anything as expensive as grade separated rail (which is only expensive in the short run, and which we can't afford to NOT invest in) will require a large regional funding source and thereby regional buy-in. Talk to the Subway to the Sea Coalition to find out why though I've had to reduce the amount of time I spend serving GLAM's efforts, the aggressive pursuit for a regional system continues. Simply, to get the Wilshire subway funded you need support from throughout the region. A Santa Monica/Sunset subway would be no different.

Again, the bulk of the 4/704's ridership is not from West Hollywood. It's from east of there. As I've said to other transit advocates that have questioned alignments due to bus ridership, ridership alone is not an sufficient indicator of the viability of rail. Never has been, for a lot of reasons. Among them, ridership for a line that's 20 miles long doesn't tell you anywhere near enough. You have to look at where it's coming from and where it's going. Indeed, you have to consider the ridership of portions of the line that it shares with other lines. I point that out because the 4/704 travels down Sunset east of the 101, sharing alignment with none other than the 2/302 (the Sunset Blvd bus). Additionally, in the context of a rail line study and a rail system you have to determine how those people and others would shift their travel mode and patterns.

[Dan Wentzel]

damiengoodmon said:

The alternative (Santa Monica), eliminates the possibility of serving Sunset.

Not exactly. Sunset Blvd. will not be left with nothing. It still be served by the modality in which current ridership and ridership for the foreseeable future warrants... a BUS.

I would do better than the MTA in that regard as I would put a Rapid Bus on Sunset and possibly an LADOT Dash to connect the strip to the Red Line today and the Pink Line in the future.

Maybe the western part of the strip can be served by some cute little contraption like Angel's Flight downtown, taking them from San Vicente or La Cienega up to their tourist destinations. (I'm only half-kidding actually.)

Even though we have this disagreement on one line, I really do admire GLAM's regional approach to the issue. In fact, I support most of their vision and plan with the exception of this one (major) design flaw. The "Sliver Line" precludes any travel east/west through West Hollywood in favor of a lesser transit corridor and MISSES putting rail where the City wants it most, namely at the intersections of Santa Monica Blvd and Fairfax and SMB/LaCienega. In the "Silver Line" GLAM plan both of these stops are missed for lesser stops on Sunset. And, there is no circulator indicated on the GLAM map, so I don't expect anyone looking at the GLAM map to just assume it would be built or trust it would be built.

I'll stick with advocating the "Pink Line".

I do agree with you and GLAM that there should be an overall regional long-term plan. However, in practice, a whole system isn't approved at once, the planning and financing of new alignments is one line at a time.

Purely looking at how development and planning works in practice in Southern California, if and when a second line connecting the Red/Purple Line in a southwest/northeast connector is decided, the Green Line may not even be in the planning stages to go north into the Valley. The choice to connect the Valley to Century City and the Westside via Santa Monica Blvd will make much more sense.

Including the western part of the Strip would basically leave the heart of West Hollywood out of the alignment, and as the City of West Hollywood would like have a major say in where they want the rail stops to go in their city, similar to Beverly Hills.

There is NO chance the City of WeHo would advocate putting its stops on Sunset where it wouldn't serve the majority of their transit users, when there are people walking distance from SMB clamoring for it to be built today. (I understand the GLAM plan offers WeHo offer Santa Monica/San Vicente and Santa Monica/La Brea on it's edges, without connecting them, but WeHo also wants and need Santa Monica / LaCienga or Civic Center and Fairfax in the heart of their city).

I invite anyone to go to any planning forum for the Westside and for WCOG and argue for stiffing the heart of West Hollywood on Santa Monica Blvd. to put a rail stop on the western Strip with the hopes that eventual development on the Strip that may or may not (probably will not) occur will help it catch up with SMB as a rail priority.

You may want mittens and a scarf for the frosty reception you'll receive.

The Sunset Strip does need and deserves quality transit service like every other neighborhood in Los Angeles. And, that service should be seen in the context of connecting it with Hollywood/Highland's rail stop today and with a San Vicente/Santa Monica, La Cienega/Santa Monica and Fairfax/Santa Monica stops tomorrow, and a possible Fairfax or LaBrea stop on Sunset on the way to H/H. The best manner to do that is some form of bus.

I will grant you that the eastern part of the 4/704 is more heavily traveled than the western portion. However, west of LaBrea, Sunset isn't even in competition for heavier use. I was in Westwood last night for a UCLA guest lecture on sustainable transportation planning where crowded 704's whizzed by Westwood and near empty #2 bus came after near empty #2 bus, one after the other.

At the end of the lecture I attended, the subject of marketing transportation alternatives came up and the importance of doing that well, to the decision makers and to potential ridership. I do give thanks that advocates of a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment west of LaBrea, like myself and the City of WeHo, will have a MUCH easier job marketing their desired alignment to the powers that be than Sunset west of Fairfax supporters, when this subject finally becomes more than academic.

But, I do respect and admire GLAM's overall vision, and agree with most of its other alignments, and am glad they are around to make the positive case for a comprehensive regional approach to transit.

[Dan Wentzel]

Here's a very lo-tech version of The Pink Line as I dream it to be. It shows various options. Please excuse my lack of graphic design skills. It shows the Pink Line in the context of the Purple Line being extended to the sea and the Green Line being extend into the Valley. I modified one of the maps from the conceptual map index.

The core of the Pink Line is in West Hollywood on Santa Monica Blvd between La Cienega and Fairfax.

There are three basic routes it could take.

1) The version shown on the MTA potential westside transit corridor alignment map is a directo shot from Hollywood/Highland to century city on Santa Monica Blvd. nad possibly farther points west. The major advantages of this line is that it is direct east/west and north/south, it makes it easier for passengers from the Valley to get to the Westside in a manner in which they can currently go southeast towards downtown on the Red Line. This is the most commonly thought of Santa Monica alignment on the ground.

2) The second version would go from H/H to Santa Monica/LaCienega and then go south down La Cienega to Wilshire where it could then go west again to Century City or down to the Expo Line, potentially even down to the Airport. Beverly Hills prefers a Wilshire alignment at present and this would also allow a stop walking distance from Cedar-Sinai and the Beverly Center.

3) A third possibility would be a crosstown rail project connecting with the Crenshaw LRT. It would go from LAX, up Crenshaw, northwest on San Vicente to Santa Monica and then northeast to H/H. This zig zag would be like the G-train in Brooklyn, a crosstown rail. This is less likely to be chosen because its indirect nature. Fairfax seems a more plausible northern extension of the Crenshaw Line.

On the northern end, I would send the Pink Line east to SantaMonica/LaBrea where it could then head north to H/H or head east to Sunset Junction and then downtown from a completely different direction than currently being served, bringing Silverlake and Echo Park into the rail system.

Note: I leave out the Sunset Strip. I just don't believe it's the best use of rail resources and considering the number 2 bus doesn't even have an all day express bus, it doesn't warrant rail. I highly doubt NIMBYs up there would allow the kind of development to warrant it. For those who desperately want a rail stop somewhere on Sunset, I recommend heading north at Santa Monica LaCienega or Crescent Heights to Sunset/Fairfax on the east end of the strip on the way to H/H. It plausible to have a stop at SanVicente/SantaMonica and Crescent Heights/Santa Monica and then Fairfax/Sunset, but I personally prefer going all the way over to LaBrea.

The western Sunset Strip is a waste for a major rail project, IMO. There is no guarantee and in fact, it is extremely unlikely the demand in this area will surpass the demand on SMB in the core of West Hollywood anytime soon. There is no real way to have the core of West Hollywood and the western end of the strip integrated into rail. This is where the Pink Line differs radically from GLAM's otherwise worthy plan. The Strip deserves adequate transit and I look forward to improved bus service that will help clubbers get to their clubbing more conveniently.

It is the core portion of Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood between La Cienega and Fairfax in West Hollywood that makes the Pink Line invaluable. It is the ignoring of the east-west core on SMB that makes the "Silver Line" on the GLAM map unsuitable and politically implausible.

The "CORE" has multiple options for extension of the alignment south and/or southwest from La Cienega to (1) Century City and points west via Beverly Hills, (2a) Century City and points west via Beverly Center/Cendar Sinai via La Cienega, (2b) Purple Line and Expo Line via La Cienga, branching either/both to LAX and/or Venice Beach, (3) Crenshaw LRT via San Vicente Blvd.

Multiple options going northeast/east from SantaMonica/Fairfax include (1) Hollywood/Highland (and even potentially the Valley) via (a) Sunset/Fairfax for those who HAVE to serve the strip, even a little bit of it, (b) Santa Monica/LaBrea, and (2) go further east on SMB to the Red Line up to Sunset Junction and down Sunset to Union Station, bringing Silverlake and Echo Park into the system.


I'm considering starting a nonprofit that will lobby support for the Pink Line with that core link as the heart. Whatever spokes go out from La Cienega and Fairfax on SMB will up to the prioritization of the MTA.

Of course, this is all academic, and of course, all reasonable westside transit planners and advocates understand that the Purple Line to the sea along Wilshire Blvd via Century City is the top priority.

But this forum is for dream maps, and the Pink Line is mine.

[Dan Wentzel]

Here's a streamlined version of the Pink Line on the Transition Coalition's conceptional westside map. It's simpler with what could be proposed to start.

Core: LaCienega/Santa Monica to Fairfax/Santa Monica

Western terminals: Century City via Santa Monica Blvd.
Expo Line via La Cienega Blvd. (Airport extension possible later)

Eastern terminals: Hollywood/Highland station with one stop on Sunset on LaBrea.
Downtown via Santa Monica Blvd. to Sunset through Silverlake and Echo Park.

I'd recommend phase one to be H/H to CC and Expo/LaCienega with the second phase to be the eastern extension via Santa Monica Blvd. to downtown. The third phases can extend the Pink Line onto Venice Beach and to the Airport.

[Dan Wentzel]

Here's hoping that the MTA's decision to have one of it's three upcoming Westside Extension forums in West Hollywood is a sign that they are taking the idea of a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment more seriously than they might have planned, or at least some improvement, heavy or light rail and a bus only lane.

In the first round of five meetings, they left West Hollywood out of the cycle.

In any event, at least those of us who support an additional alignment to Wilshire along Santa Monica Blvd. will be heard.

Purple Line extension to San Monica via Century City is the highest westside priority. I understand that.

[Dan Wentzel]

laist.com/2008/01/30/metro_questions.php



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.

Just seeing this map made we weep with joy.

I'm really glad the MTA is at least considering a second alignment via Santa Monica Blvd. Yay!

It looks like Santa Monica Blvd. supporters were heard!

[bobdavis]

As a native Southern Californian who remembers the Red Cars (San Gabriel Valley version, at least), I hope I'm still around when some of these projects have their "first runs". That "Conceptual Westside Rail" map is really impressive; as a San Gabriel resident it doesn't affect me that much but it's still fun to think of visiting Santa Monica just for the heck of it without enduring the I-10 or a long bus ride. Here in SGV country, there's some road work on Rosemead Blvd--in my dreams it's being dug up for a light rail line connecting Gold Line, Metrolink San Bernardino (that would be a tricky engineering project), Green Line, and maybe Long Beach airport and the Blue line (aren't computer message boards wonderful?)

[wad]

dantheman99 said:

In the first round of five meetings, they left West Hollywood out of the cycle.

Part of what caused Santa Monica to be included was demands for the Purple Line to snake up to West Hollywood away from Wilshire. Most want a Wilshire line to stay on Wilshire. Metro does see the potential in West Hollywood ridership.

[wad]

dantheman99 said:

Just seeing this map made we weep with joy.

Seeing that some of the West Hollywood alternatives call for a transfer at Hollywod & Highland just made me weep.

[Dan Wentzel]

wad said:

dantheman99 said:

In the first round of five meetings, they left West Hollywood out of the cycle.

Part of what caused Santa Monica to be included was demands for the Purple Line to snake up to West Hollywood away from Wilshire. Most want a Wilshire line to stay on Wilshire. Metro does see the potential in West Hollywood ridership.

The MTA is stating it was surpised by the level of demand for both lines. I think the scheduling of the initial five meetings was a matter of assuming that Wilshire was the popular option, and it is. West Hollywood requested a MTA presentation. What happened was people saying "build here, build here!" as opposed to people fighting rail or saying "build there, NIMBY". Demographic changes and travel patters have changed increasing the viability of a Santa Monica Blvd. corridor as a compliment to the Purple Line extension.

Intersting that LAist mentioned that Valley respondents were intrigued by the possibility of a direct ride to the westside. (Imagine how excited they'd be if the Green Line were extended to LAX, up/over/through the Sepulveda Pass up to Metrolink, a connection to to Burbank Airport, extension to Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena and the Gold Line, and even potentially a Ventura Blvd. subway someday.)

[Dan Wentzel]

Here is a sample of what the Pink Line might look like.

This is from LAist.

laist.com/2008/02/01/14_minutes_from.php

Showing the direct method of benefitting the Valley will help raise support. Get from North Hollywood to Century City in 14 minutes! (It used to take me 45 min to an hour every day 15 years ago. Imagine what it would be today.)


This would not be in addition to the Purple Line, not instead of.


NOTE: I am using my own bandwidth on these maps ;D

[joequality]

Wow thats cool. I'm going to the meeting tonight to see for myself. I'll ask why they won't want to connect the Purple to the Expo terminus on Colorado.

[BRinSM]

Would a transfer station really be necessary since these would most likely be terminus stations on lines that run in the same direction? Colorado and Wilshire are really only a short walk from each other anyways. you can judge the amount of time it would take to walk between the two by seeing how long it would take you to walk across the entire 3rd st promenade. i've done it plenty of times, it can easily be done in less than 10 minutes.

[LAofAnaheim]

You should have a terminus at one station. How inept would it be to be 1 mile apart? That's like not creating our downtown connector "oh...its only 2 miles from 7th Metro to Union Sation....people can take the Red Line shuttle". It's an inconvenience more than anything else.

[Dan Wentzel]

joequality said:

Wow thats cool. I'm going to the meeting tonight to see for myself. I'll ask why they won't want to connect the Purple to the Expo terminus on Colorado.

There's a chance a future Lincoln Blvd. LRT could end their too. Make it a Coney Island like terminal.

As for a north/south route, a route from Green Line up to Metrolink via LAX and through the Sepulveda Pass is probably a higher priority.

[joequality]

dantheman99 said:

There's a chance a future Lincoln Blvd. LRT could end their too. Make it a Coney Island like terminal.

As for a north/south route, a route from Green Line up to Metrolink via LAX and through the Sepulveda Pass is probably a higher priority.

Very true. I know it's probably too close to the terminus, but it should have a stop at Pico for Tommy's! Mmmm...Tommy's.....!

[Dan Wentzel]

joequality said:

dantheman99 said:

There's a chance a future Lincoln Blvd. LRT could end their too. Make it a Coney Island like terminal.

As for a north/south route, a route from Green Line up to Metrolink via LAX and through the Sepulveda Pass is probably a higher priority.

Very true. I know it's probably too close to the terminus, but it should have a stop at Pico for Tommy's! Mmmm...Tommy's.....!

If the Pink line goes to La Brea, you could take the Pink to Pink's.

As for me, I'll catch any train to get to an In and Out Burger.

[Adrian Auer-Hudson]

sodha said:

You should have a terminus at one station. How inept would it be to be 1 mile apart? That's like not creating our downtown connector "oh...its only 2 miles from 7th Metro to Union Sation....people can take the Red Line shuttle". It's an inconvenience more than anything else.

I disagree. If the Lincoln Blvd line goes ahead it will interchange with both Red and Expo Lines. That will give interchange possibilities within Santa Monica and better pedestrian distribution.

Adrian

[LAofAnaheim]

^ So...you think those people a little less healthier than the norm would find it convenient to be forced to walk about a mile or something just to transfer to another Metro line?

That's like saying the Angels Flight is not needed b/c everybody can walk up/down the nearby staircase. That's not always the case.........

[Dan Wentzel]

Hmm. I can see both sides of this.

Santa Monica may want a line at each end of the Promenade.

I think I like the Coney Island-esqe idea for sentimental reasons.

Instead of going to Sears, I wish the terminus were at the Santa Monica Place Mall which is undergoing an overhaul.

[masonite]

dantheman99 said:

Hmm. I can see both sides of this.

Santa Monica may want a line at each end of the Promenade.

I think I like the Coney Island-esqe idea for sentimental reasons.

Instead of going to Sears, I wish the terminus were at the Santa Monica Place Mall which is undergoing an overhaul.

Sears is immediately adjacent to Santa Monica Place. It is essentially the same place.

[Dan Wentzel]

That's true. I'm also thinking of Port Authority and Penn Station that had retail on it in Manhattan.

I used to go bowling at the Port Authority Bus Terminal bowling alley.

I'd love to see a grand complex with the Purple, Expo and possible Lincoln and Pink lines come together at a grand station with retail, movie theaters etc.

[BRinSM]

The difference between Penn Station and MTA terminus stations in Santa Monica is that Penn Station is a major transfer station for all types of commuters. I highly doubt that there will be many, if any, transfers between the Expo and Purple lines. They both run the same direction and have Downton LA as their terminus on the east end.

[Dan Wentzel]

That's true. And, there isn't much at the Coney Island station other than trains, track and platforms.

[bluelineshawn]

sodha said:

^ So...you think those people a little less healthier than the norm would find it convenient to be forced to walk about a mile or something just to transfer to another Metro line?

That's like saying the Angels Flight is not needed b/c everybody can walk up/down the nearby staircase. That's not always the case.........

It's more like a 1/2 mile than a mile. And I wouldn't expect many transfers bewteen the lines. If both lines used the same mode - both heavy rail or both light rail - it would make sense operationally to connect the lines. As it is I think that it's fine.

[Dan Wentzel]

Here is a letter I wrote to the City of West Hollywood asking them to support Alternative #9 of the Westside Transit Extension Corridor:

I fully support your attempts to bring a subway to Santa Monica Blvd. during the current Westside Transit Extension Corridor study.
In particular, Alternative #9 is the best one and I encourage everyone to write the MTA and their elected officials to advocate for it. Alternative #9 contains the famed Wilshire Blvd. subway to the sea with a needed spur into Century City. It ALSO contains an alignment that goes from NorthHollywood to Century City via Santa Monica Blvd. It's not just about moving east/west. The Santa Monica Blvd. alignment proposed in Alternative #9 has north/south benefits as well. A commute that used to take me an hour every day each way could be done in 14 minutes. Alternative #9 would benefit both the residents and businesses on both sides of Mulholland, in WeHo and in the SF Valley. There would finally be a viable transit alternative to snaking through passes and canyons. The north/south benefits to/from the Valley added to the east/west benefits of a Santa Monica Blvd. make it competitive with the strictly east/west benefits on the Wilshire line.

We need BOTH, so please support Alternative #9.

Unfortunately, I am witnessing too many people supporting a West Hollywood alignment advocating strictly, but understandable, parochial interests in having a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment. That alone will not be enough to get a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment in addition to the Wilshire Blvd. alignment. (There is no politically feasible way to get a Santa Monica Blvd. subway alignment INSTEAD of Wilishire.)

However, the REGIONAL benefits of Alternative #9, may be enough to bring aboard the support of Valley residents/businesses who ask, "What's in this for me." Santa Monica Blvd. subway advocates like myself need to push as hard the regional north/south benefits, not just the parochial east/west interests for this to overcome an MTA that is obviously pre-dispositioned to have one Westside subway line only on Wilshire Blvd. The way to bring subway to West Hollywood is, in my opinion, to make alliances with people in the Valley to support Alternative #9.

Terri Slimmer wrote back the following repsonse:

Thanks Dan for the email - I concur that we need to advocate for a more multipurpose alignment.

Those of us who support a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment, need to move the debate beyond the parochial interest of just getting west from Hollywood/Higland, but how the region will benefit. The region is largely clear about the benefits of the Wilshire Blvd. alignment. Alternative #9 would offer a direct connection from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside and provide a desperately needed alternative to countless people snaking through canyons and passes every day.

The way to win support for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment is to ally with San Fernando Valley advocates who will have an answer to the question, "what's in it for me."

We must get people to support BOTH a Santa Monica Blvd. and Wilshire Blvd. alignment. There is no way to get a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment only, and there shouldn't be. Wilshire Blvd. is clearly the highest rail priority. However, if we don't keep pushing, Santa Monica Blvd. will not only not get a subway, it won't get a light-rail or even a streetcar, or even a bus-only lane. It will get nothing.

The MTA is clearly predisposed to having one subway line along Wilshire and that's it. They didn't even schedule a public forum in West Hollywood initially. The only reason they are even meeting in West Hollywood just to pat people on the head is because people are advocating for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment. Let's keep pushing!

Alternative #9 of the Westside Transit Extension Corridor offers a politically feasible and viable way to build a coalition big enough to raise enough support for the creation of a Santa Monica Blvd. subway line IN ADDITION TO the highest priority Purple Line extension along Wilshire.

[Tony Fernandez]

What if the line went to the Miracle Mile? If Alternative 9 were built, the trains would go directly to Century City, but what about all of those people who live in the SFV and work in the Miracle Mile? Wouldn't a line straight down La Cienega from Hollywood/Highland please everyone?

[Dan Wentzel]

Here's the letter I sent to every relevant stakeholder and activist I could find:

Dear Neighborhood Activist and Stakeholder,

In case you hadn't heard, I wanted to let you know about one of the Alternatives being studied as part of the MTA's Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project that will directly benefit both Westside AND San Fernando Valley residents, businesses and neighborhoods if it is chosen. It will offer a invaluable alternative to people snaking to/from the San Fernando Valley and the Westside choking through clogged passes and canyons.

Please check out the Westside Transit Coordior Extension Project details at www.metro.net/projects_programs/westside/2008_01-02_presentation.pdf

As you are well aware, Ventura Blvd. and the whole San Fernando Valley need a comprehensive public transit plan with a vision of the future. The best days of the car culture are behind us and the future will only get worse for solo-motorists. Yes, public transit costs money. No, the car culture is not sustainable at the past levels of quality.

The future economic and environmental cost to not building a high-quality, comprehensive public transit system is unthinkable. With millions more people migrating to Southern California over the next few decades, we need to put as much investment in public transit over the next five decades as we did in roads and freeways over the previous five. I'm glad to see Valley and other Neighborhood Councils taking the initiative. The Valley needs to take matters into its hands and come up with its own public transit vision and not expect downtown to take the lead. It can start by supporting Alternative #9 in the Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project, which includes a link form NoHo to Century City and the Westside along Santa Monica Blvd., and will provide an invaluable alternative to people snaking through canyons/passes every day.

As part of its Westside Transit Cooridor Extension Project, Alternative #9 includes both the heralded "Subway to the Sea" along Wilshire via Centura City AND an alignment between the Valley and the Westside along Santa Monica Blvd. A daily commute from North Hollywood to Century City that used to take me an hour would now take only 14 minutes. Please support, and ask your colleagues to support, Alternative #9 of the Westside Transit Extension Corridor Project. Time is of the essence because the MTA is working on its draft of its 25-year Long Range Transportation Plan which will be released shortly. Please act now.

Please indicate your support for Alternative #9 by sending an e-mail to [e-mail]

Thank you so much! Future generations of Southern Californians in the Valley, the Westside and throughout the entire region will thank you.

How much it will help or not, I don't know. But at least I did everything I knew how to do to support a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment (a.k.a. the "Pink Line").

A dream without action is just a hallucination.

At least I took the actions I knew how to take at this time with the knowledge and experience I have and didn't expect someone else to do my advocacy for me.

And, I'm happy I'm using my time and energy to build something I think will be wonderful for countless people, rather than obstruct or sabotage something for a selfish interest.

In any event, I wish all your transit dreams come true too.