Well, we should all realize that this Wilshire subway will be built in segments, and that different lines will be competing in between each subway segment.
For example, don't expect the rest of the county to just sit on their hands while the subway gets to Century City. The Subway will probably have to wait between Century City and Westwood or west of the 405, and that's so many years away we cannot know what the economic and political climate will be.
The gridlock under the 405 freeway is huge, so that we must get it to Federal and probably even to Bundy...but that's so far away in time that we can't really know whether Westsiders will want it to go all the way to the ocean at that time, or instead have a north-south subway from the Expo Line to the Valley.
Hence our discussion is very good, but probably more of an intellectual exercise (a quality one at that) that we'll revisit over the years while the immediate focus is just to find a way to get this sucka to Century City!
Post by damiengoodmon on May 7, 2008 23:35:28 GMT -8
This is just an AA (Alternatives Analysis). As I first said, if anything this begs further investment (continuing the AA) to look into other routes that may produce higher ridership. I'm seriously surprised and greatly disappointed by the low numbers. But use it to get a better product.
Simply this doesn't have to be just an academic discussion. If seen vaild, NOW is the time to ask Metro to appropriate additional funding to expand the AA study area to Van Nuys/Oxnard (Van Nuys SFV busway station) "to fully evaluate other alignments similar in cost that may provide services to more riders and/or be more competitive for funding...blah blah blah"
The politics of it are murky, but it might be worth trying.
Pull it off and you instantly start the "Friends of the Bronze Line" movement, and could marginalize if not convert current Purple Line naysayers in the SFV.
"If that passion were directed at fighting for grade separation instead of fighting the people who want grade separation, it might actually get us closer to the type of rail transit system this region needs and deserves."
I entirely agree, Damien, but I want you all reading this to remember a rather bizarre phenomenon that I've observed over the past decade or so of transit advocacy on the Westside. People TALK about a SFV-Westside-LAX line, but in terms of a "Friends of" grassroots group, it's just not there!
The Expo Line, a Lincoln Blvd./LAX/South Bay Green Line and other projects have been fired up in the imagination of transit advocates throughout the Westside, South Bay and Mid-City regions, and our latest efforts have been to slam through conceptual ideas of how to create a network that includes a Crenshaw and Downtown light rail combination that pairs up with a Wilshire Subway that gets to Century City.
Beyond that, the SFV (unlike the SGV, which is REALLY mobilized behind its Gold Line extension to Azusa and beyond) and UCLA and other entities east of the far Westside have absolutely NEVER organized for some quality project to address the SFV-Westside-LAX problem.
I can only guess that when the Expo Line and Wilshire Line reaches Culver City and Century City, respectively, that such a north-south line will really start becoming less "pie in the sky" and more of a reality that must be confronted.
Scott Mercer suggested on Streetsblog that since Metro has not opted for one-seat ride from the Valley to the Westside on Santa Monica Blvd., what about some engineering that allows a one-seat ride up/down Vermont and then west on Wilshire instead of just going east. I wonder what the cost of building that would be.
I very much hope you succeed. A website and a key e-mail address is the right way to start, perhaps with a co-chair to get as much shared workload done as possible. If there are Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, SFV and Los Angeles individuals who share your vision, you should get e-mails out there to forward across the Internet so that "word of mouth" allows people to reach you.
Each individual can make a difference, yourself included. I think that you should hold a meeting at some venue (it can even be a restaurant or park/library meeting room) and find a way to achieve consensus towards either Alternative 11 or 16. Topics could include the station location, transit-oriented development, routing and, of course, the thorny question of where a Pink Line would fit in with the drive to push this Wilshire Line as far west and as quickly done as possible.
Questions for a new "Friends" group include: Should this Pink Line get its start before or after the Purple Line gets to Century City? After it gets to Westwood? Where should it fit in with plans to extend the Crenshaw Line to the Purple Line? How much support does this have both from local and Valley residents? What sort of transfer would it have with the Red Line at Hollywood and Highland?
^ I think that at this point, it is critical to keep that possibility in mind when designing these extensions. Thus, the Purple/Pink junction (whether at Beverly Center or Wilshire/LaCienega) should be designed to accommodate trains traveling from Mid-Wilshire up to Hollywood.
To have a loop like London's Center Line (the yellow route on the tube map), the MTA would have to make major changes to the stations at Hollywood/Highland and Wilshire/Vermont. I like the idea of this, but IMO it's out of the scope of the current project.
I kind of like the idea of a Hollywood/West Hollywood/East Hollywood loop; there are vast number of people in this areas and important destinations. A Downtown loop is nice too...but this seems like a better idea. I am totally biased since I live in East Hollywood.
"Metro planners presented West Hollywood with good news on Monday night.
To their own surprise, the proposed subway expansion makes better sense to planners when a Santa Monica Boulevard route is added to the traditionally better-preferred Wilshire Boulevard route.
A crowd of 75 attendees listened in rapture while Long Range Transportation planners explained how a Santa Monica spur running from the current Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station hooking up with a Wilshire line south of West Hollywood would not only increase ridership significantly, but also provides enough in travel time improvements to give Congress reason to fund the subway expansion. “What was surprising to us,” David Mieger, project manager said, “is that adding Santa Monica Boulevard to the Wilshire route, in compliment to one another, it works [from a feasibility, cost and ridership perspective.”
The representatives, who are shepherding through to completion a massive public comment process designed to flesh out Metro’s Draft 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), noted that huge increases in new boardings at existing stations, plus projected new boardings in new stations dotting the area, saw the cost per user travel-hour leap to a level of efficiency that would convince the federal government to fund the larger part of a project supposed to cost over $8.5 billion."
Let's estimate a timetable for Purple LineAlternative 1, the direct line along Wilshire (including Century City). Times to Western are actual; the remainder are based on comparable Red Line segments.
7th & Flower
Wilshire & Alvarado
Wilshire & Vermont
Wilshire & Normandie
Wilshire & Western
Wilshire & Crenshaw
Wilshire & La Brea
Wilshire & Fairfax
Wilshire & La Cienega
Wilshire & Beverly
Santa Monica & Ave of the Stars
Wilshire & Westwood
Wilshire & Federal
Wilshire & Bundy
Wilshire & 26th
Wilshire & 14th
Wilshire & 4th
So 33 minutes downtown to Santa Monica, plus or minus a minute or so.
Estimated at $5.5 billion (2008 dollars) for 12.3-14 new subway miles (distances for Alternatives 1 and 14), you can see why we build few subways, and only in the densest corridors.
I think your averages are correct when cross referenced with the average red line speed, however I think this line is going to have more stations per mile then the red line, so I think its safe to assume this line is going to travel at a slower average speed then the red line. I'd be willing to assume it'll take at least another 3 to 4 minutes. I remember David Miegar giving the estimate of 28 minutes from wilshire/western. From union station this line will be more like a 40 minute ride and from downtown more like a 36 to 37 minute ride.
I'd be willing to assume it'll take at least another 3 to 4 minutes. I remember David Miegar giving the estimate of 28 minutes from wilshire/western. From union station this line will be more like a 40 minute ride and from downtown more like a 36 to 37 minute ride.
Copying from other threads, rather than overall average speed I'm using comparable existing timetable segments. Metro rounds to whole minutes - we're not talking rocket science here! If you look at the operator's speedometer, you realize there's slack in the schedule.
My base case is stations one mile apart on subway, 2 minutes. Cut that to a half mile without tight turns, 1 minute. Two miles between stations, 3 minutes.
If the jog up to Beverly Blvd., Alternative 16, is chosen, adding 1-1.5 miles, 1-2 stations, and 2-4 tight turns, yes, that would slow it down 3-4 minutes. Otherwise I think it's pretty accurate.
AirTalk on the Road - The Subway to the Sea AirTalk with Larry Mantle travels to the Beverly Hills Public Library on Tuesday, June 24th at 6:30 p.m. for a one-hour discussion about the proposed Westside extension of the Purple Line, or the "Subway to the Sea" project. The public is invited to attend. The library is located at 444 N. Rexford Drive in Beverly Hills. Please let us know if you plan to attend by sending an e-mail to email@example.com
I think it's because the existing stations have turns (Vermont to Normandie) and switches (Alvarado) that slow down the speed. Plus, Metro rounds to the next minute up for the published schedule.
If that's the case I think there are a few stations on this estimate that would have their times estimated up based on there being additional turns. As I said before the estimated time by david miegar, from wilshire and western to santa monica was 26 to 28 minutes. That makes the lines estimated time end to end round 39-41 minutes.
Post by metrocenter on Jun 25, 2008 7:48:51 GMT -8
Last night's panel discussion about the "Subway To The Sea" was pretty good. The panel included four people. First was a senior MTA planner - allegedly neutral but obviously enthusiastic about the prospect of a completed Wilshire Subway. Second was a Beverly Hills Councilwoman who, along with her city, vigorously supports the subway. Third was Mike Feuer, the State Assemblyman working on getting the proposed subway sales tax on the ballot.
The final member of the panel was Mike Antonovich's deputy for transportation issues, who among the four was the lone pseudo-opponent of the subway. I say "pseudo" because he claimed his boss the supervisor supports the subway (which was news to me). The catch is that he wants to put lots of conditions on the funds. For instance, he advocates building the Purple Line in short increments, simultaneous with his Gold Line Foothill Extension and several other light-rail projects. But if the MTA followed this strategy, it would take the MTA the entire 30 years (the max duration of the sales tax) to build the Purple Line.
... The final member of the panel was Mike Antonovich's deputy for transportation issues, who among the four was the lone pseudo-opponent of the subway. I say "pseudo" because he claimed his boss the supervisor supports the subway (which was news to me).
Technically he supports suwbays for example the Regional Connector as a subway he wholeheartedly supports because there's a direct positive impact on the Gold Line or any other LRT line (Burbank-Glendale or increased Metrolink) that serves his district. ;D
The catch is that he wants to put lots of conditions on the funds. For instance, he advocates building the Purple Line in short increments, simultaneous with his Gold Line Foothill Extension and several other light-rail projects. But if the MTA followed this strategy, it would take the MTA the entire 30 years (the max duration of the sales tax) to build the Purple Line...
With that we could acheive two 3-4 mile extensions to get the subway to Westwood in a 8-12 year window while extending the rest of the rail system.
However, I'm pleased by what Antonovich is saying because at the very least he fundamentally understands that without the funding for the subway on the ballot, there is NO Foothill Gold Line to even Azusa/Citrus College. There's some level of compromise or olive branch that is willing to be brought to get something the will support as many parties as possible and can be completed realistically as quickly as possible. And given that we are 4 months away from November, the sooner the better because there's not much time left.
I concur with Jerard. I will go out on a limb and suggest that for every SGV voter that thinks the Subway is a boondoggle that they don't want to pay for, there's a greater L.A. voter that thinks the same of the Gold Line to Ontario.
I think that both projects, coupled with Metrolink and bus connections, have excellent benefits to their given regions...and the concept of a quid pro quo is a far, far better solution politically than to have one project be promoted and the other sent into oblivion.
The key to passing something like the sales tax is basically to give everyone a carrot. Hopefully whoever ends up pushing the initiative and designing it makes sure to include some prize for every region, something that can be put in local ads and listed at local meetings so everyone knows they're getting someone.
It's not the most efficient way to design a transit system, but some promises at the start could allow some desperately needed projects to get off the ground.
Post by metrocenter on Jun 26, 2008 8:05:04 GMT -8
^ Yes, I agree. The tax measure should include in its text a list of specific projects that would be funded and built using the new tax revenue. For example:
* Purple Line to Westside * Gold Line to Montclair and ONT airport * Expo to Santa Monica * Metro Connector (in Downtown) * Crenshaw Line * Green Line to LAX and Westchester * Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
Obviously, some funding for this set of projects would also come from other sources, including the feds. But having the law mandate construction of these specific projects would give the voting public a comprehensive vision of L.A. in the next couple of decades.
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 26, 2008 10:07:07 GMT -8
Isn't Prop A & Prop C covering the Expo Line & Crenshaw Corridor? Those projects are going to be funded in the next 25 years, regardless of the additional sales tax I thought. However, I still fully support the tax, we need to include some Green Line extensions as well!
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 30, 2008 15:06:42 GMT -8
;D to all concerned: I was hoping that in a tax increase everybody would be happy, The people of the Valley are put off by the people of the West side. Yet I can see why---people who live in the valley don't want all their tax dollars going to the west-side for construction of their rail-line and vise versa. Will not the 1/2 cent sales tax be evenly divided? or quartered? I still think the Metro should have committed 80 million and the Feds would have given 320 million I thought that was sweet deal.
Can the committees of the SGV come up with the 80 million themselves or get investors to put up so their project could get the funding for Uncle Sam? Sincerely the Roadtrainer