Here in Van Nuys

Here in Van Nuys

11 comments on A Gutless Subway Idea

A Gutless Subway Idea


Photo: Ticklebug

The LA Times, in an editorial today, is imagining that part of a $4 billion public transportation, state bond proposal can be steered towards an extension of the MTA Red Line to bring it all the way………… to Fairfax Boulevard!

It would cost “only” $1.2 billion dollars to extend the line 3 miles or $500 million dollars a mile– or $100 million dollars every 1,000 feet.

This idea is ludicrous, ridiculously expensive and ultimately useless. How does it help Los Angeles to only move the subway three miles further to the east and still neglect to push it to Beverly Hills, Westwood, Brentwood and Santa Monica?

The Times says politicians have not been especially courageous about the subway and have pandered to business fears about tunneling disruptions, social fears about crime, and tax phobia among voters. But the most gutless idea is to let everyone off the hook by building a half-assed, luxury priced subway only as far as Fairfax. Funded by a bond, paid for by future debt.

There is a realistic way to fund the subway all the way to the ocean: tax all Los Angeles area gasoline at 10 cents a gallon. Take the windfall and apply it to a full-scale subway extension. It would help reduce traffic and smog and create incentives for saving gas. This is called common sense.

Imagine if the State of California, back in the 1950’s, had decided to build the San Diego Freeway only from San Diego to Del Mar? Or if the 10 Freeway only ran from Downtown LA to Crenshaw Boulevard?

But there were leaders back then, and today we only have wimps who cannot dare to challenge this city and state to do what is right and build a real comprehensive public transportation infrastructure for the Southland.

Here in Van Nuys's avatar

Posted by:

Here in Van Nuys

Writer/photographer

11 responses to “A Gutless Subway Idea”

  1. carter Avatar
    carter

    The likelihood of any valley extension of the red line is almost zero, yet if you were to do it, I feel you could continue taking it north under Lankershim and creating a turn west and running it under Sherman Way or Roscoe, preferably S/Way.
    The other thought is still to take it underground under the orange line, as any light rail use at grade would make no sense as every intersection would have to have a bridge over it. Easier and more affordable to place it underground as the real estate is already there, and there are few utility lines issues involved and some parking is already there to create the stations and access points. Maybe have fewer stations, as in one at Fulton for Valley College, Van Nuys Blvd. for civic center, Sepulveda, Balboa, Reseda, and Winnetka for Pierce, and then the terminus for Warner Center.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Wad Avatar
    Wad

    I know about the previous alignment of the Red Line. The Orthodox Jews did not want the elimination of the Red Line, they wanted it forced underground near their congregation. The Hancock Park homeowners are far more nefarious.

    The other problem with the previous plan was that it would have kept the Red Line underground the entire way. That is a huge waste of money for a relatively unproductive line. It would be far cheaper to run the Red Line at grade and build roads over and under the line.

    As for now, the Orange Line must be converted to rail in 10 years. Otherwise, MTA has to pay back the state $300 million plus interest. I think that once Orange Line becomes a light rail service, it should be a l-o-o-o-o-n-g cross-Valley service from Chatsworth to Montclair (via Glendale, Burbank and Eagle Rock). The Red Line can still be extended, but perhaps under (or inside) Van Nuys Boulevard.

    Like

    Reply
  3. carter Avatar
    carter

    Wad – the red line was supposed to extend into the west Valley along the Orange line route, yet was voted down by the orthodox Jews along Chandler Blvd. in Valley Village, and also by those living further west due to the construction and traffic issues – translation once again is NIMBY!!!

    Like

    Reply
  4. Wad Avatar
    Wad

    I agree with some of Scott’s rail alignments, but cities are unwilling to return their Proposition A and C funds to MTA to build a rail line. They see running empty shuttle buses as better investments.

    Also, the Red Line would be better extended west or north in the Valley. Going to Burbank is a back-assward re-creation of existing Metrolink service. The service would do more good if it went along Van Nuys Boulevard or the Orange Line.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Scott Mercer Avatar
    Scott Mercer

    Any bit of new subway helps. But the Red Line should go to the Pacific Ocean ultimately. The Expo Line and The Gold Line East L.A. portion WILL be finished, as the money is already there.

    Here’s what would really help the MetroRail:
    1) Finish Red Line to ocean (Cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica would probably vote to tax themselves to pay for a portion of the construction)
    2) Extend Green Line underground to Norwalk Metrolink station, (City of Norwalk could pay for part of it) then eventually all the way to Anaheim (Orange County could pay for this portion!)
    3) Extend Red Line in valley to Bob Hope Airport and Metrolink station in Burbank (the airport authority and the city of Burbank could pay at least part of this cost through taxes or bonds)
    4) Complete Gold Line extension to Montclair (cities along the route could pay at least part of this cost)

    My new twist is getting other cities, governments and entities along the way to gather some of the money needed to pay for this construction.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Alx Avatar
    Alx

    An extension to Fairfax is probably the most important extension the Metro could make right now. Have you ever been to the corner of FFax and Wilshire at 8am? There’s three extra-large Route 720 busses tailgating one another down the route, all standing room only. If you took that below ground, you’d essentially gain a lane of traffic in each direction on the surface with the reduced traffic flow.

    In stages, all the way out west I say.

    The money argument to me is bunk. Who cares what 1.1B is over the course of 10 years? It’s a drop in the hat compared to the inevitable traffic crunch when the population has increased another 8% by 2015.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    I believe that the 101 back in the day only went from downtown to Studio City. It didn’t run all the way through the valley. Ultimately, they finished it. They’ll finish the subway system too. And people will still complain that not enough people will use, because not enough people will use it.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Wad Avatar
    Wad

    It’s the Green Line (light rail in the middle of the 105 freeway) that runs to the airport, not the Red Line. The Red Line does not have plans of going south from Wilshire.

    Also, I hate to tell people this, but airport service is a big waste of money and not worth doing.

    Not only will a rail line fail to draw riders away from cars, airport vans and taxis, but it won’t generate enough ridership on its own merits to warrant an extension.

    For the same money, the Green Line can get extended about a mile east to the Norwalk Civic Center. There’s a large shopping center, the Norwalk City Hall and the county building. This would add 5,000-10,000 riders to the service. What money left over should then be used to build cut-in stations at Western Avenue (Southwest College), Atlantic Boulevard and either Garfield Avenue or Paramount Boulevard (for access by city of Paramount residents).

    As for airport service, the best thing would be for a regional expansion of FlyAway. These buses, which are very nice and comfortable, can actually get you right to your terminal, and with a little money from the feds, can provide remote check-in.

    And, also a point to note: heavy rail systems like the Red Line are always very complex jobs that only have small segments open at a time. When rail service is expanded in the Bay Area, Washington D.C. or Atlanta, it’s always a few stations at a time, rather than whole new lines.

    Like

    Reply
  9. fightin' mad mary Avatar
    fightin’ mad mary

    I’m still mad that the subway doesn’t run all the way to the airport! I would use it if it did. Yes I know they have a shuttle, but it’s not the same.

    Like

    Reply
  10. carter Avatar
    carter

    I agree with your assessment in that Fairfax is but a starting point to the ultimate finalization to Santa Monica. The whole thing should be funded simultaneously, yet allow the Fairfax leg to open when finished and keep on going with the rest of the construction and open up future legs when appropriate.
    Personally, I wish the thing would go down Wilshire and form a loop with the Exposition line, and place the whole thing underground, as opposed to yet another above-ground problem-child that generates cross traffic problems like the Orange or blue lines do.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Wad Avatar
    Wad

    Andrew, Fairfax Avenue is the first step. Expensive, yes.

    Useless? Hardly. The heaviest part of Wilshire Boulevard bus ridership is between downtown L.A. and Fairfax Avenue. It makes a lot of sense.

    And, when the subway was built, it always opened in stages. In 1993, a starter service was built between Union Station and MacArthur Park. Three years later, it came to Koreatown. Three years after that, the big payoff came in Hollywood. In 2000, the service made it to North Hollywood. It would have been ridiculous for everyone to wait until 2000 for the complete line to start.

    Ever hear of the network effect? Add a couple of stops to the entire network, ridership and confidence in the entire system increases. The subway has the incredible effect of being despised and winning over most of its enemies when it opens.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment