![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Well, it'll take a lot more than just one million dollars.
But some day, we might just have a subway down Wilshire. But this raises the question... just where will the stops be? And must they absolutely be ON Wilshire?
The normal planning for underground heavy rail is to shoot for about one stop per mile. Obviously you won't exactly hit exactly one mile each time, but you can't have too many more stops or the speed advantage is lost. So if the Red Line were to be extended all the way to Santa Monica, it would give us about 11-13 stops west of the current terminus, Western/Wilshire. Maybe. Depending on where it went.
But there are questions in my mind. Since this thing is going to be underground, it can largely go wherever, as long as there is some space for a subway entrance above ground. (And depending on what construction can be done what with methane pockets and such, but I'm going to conviently ignore that, because I haven't the foggiest idea where these problems exist.)
The trouble starts immediately west of the Western/Wilshire stop.
Stop #1. If we're going one mile west, the next big intersection would be Wilshire and Rossmore. But there is almost nothing at Wilshire and Rossmore. Wilshire and Crenshaw would be a far more transit-friendly stop. There's not exactly a whole lot of attractions at either stop, but a lot more existing transit passes through Wilshire/Crenshaw. Which to choose? I don't know. Would it even be better to just skip either of these and proceed to -
Stop #2. Moving west, no matter which of the stops is chosen, the next most obvious stop is Wilshire and La Brea. That one's a no brainer, if for no other reason than that there is already a Metro property there.
Stop #3. The next stop is difficult, though. Wilshire and Fairfax is a pretty heavily-trafficed place. But at the same time, there is even more going on at 3rd and Fairfax. And remember, this is underground. It is not difficult to divert the line to the approximate area of The Grove, the Farmer's Market, and the shopping area located around 3rd and Fairfax, not to mention Park La Brea, a high-density residential area. Maybe? Maybe not. Your thoughts are invited.
Stop #4. Moving west yet again we have what I would consider to be another no-brainer, Wilshire and La Cienega. What I don't know is where the above-ground entrance to the subway would actually go there. But certainly this has to be one of the most highly-trafficed intersections in Los Angeles. It's not a mile from Fairfax, but it must be covered.
Stop #5. From here, moving west, it gets even more difficult for me, because west of La Cienega my knowledge of the city gets a bit hazy. I'm a north/east side guy. What's better for the Wilshire line, to hit Wilshire/Doheny, or Wilshire/Beverly, or somewhere in between? I'm guessing Wilshire and Beverly, because if it were me...
Stop #6. I'd have the next stop turn south and hit Olympic/Avenue of the Stars in the middle of Century City. Seems like a good idea to me.
Stop #7. Then it would turn sharply north again and go straight into the middle of UCLA, perhaps right there at their little turn-around transit loop. I feel pretty certain UCLA would be cool with having a subway stop on their campus.
Stop #8. After that, it would turn sharply to the southwest again to hit the VA and the whole Federal building area around Wilshire/Sepulveda-ish. I feel pretty confident the county must own a bit of land somewhere around there, too.
Stop #9. And then a straight shot down Wilshire, with a stop at perhaps 26th in Santa Monica and then cutting a bit south to end up at...
Stop #10. The Santa Monica pier.
Actual ground covered is probably 14 miles or so, in 10 stops. Another 4 stops eastbound on the, um, "Purple Line" takes you to 7th/Metro. I'm not sure, but I think we'd be looking at about 40-50 mintues from the Santa Monica Pier to downtown, give or take a few minutes. Maybe. Not too shabby, I think, especially given how long it would take you to drive it in rush-hour traffic. What do you all think?
Also, if I had a BAZILLION dollars, there would also be a north-south rail line through the San Fernando Valley, either running underneath Van Nuys Boulevard, or possibly running above ground down the middle of Sepulveda Boulevard, that would come across (or preferably under) the mountains (maybe, MAYBE with a stop at the Getty Center although honestly I think it'd be better without), connect up with the Wilshire subway at UCLA, continue on to have a stop directly underneath LAX (with radial walkways and escalators to each of the terminals), and then terminate in a connection with the Green Line at Aviation. I'm sure there's a few spots of interest between UCLA and LAX that might be worthwhile stops for such a line, but I will have to rely on Westside experts to tell me where those should be.
May 26 2007, 15:37:27 UTC 5 years ago
A Sepulveda light rail line gets a lot of discussion. It's a good idea that's fairly far down on the list since we're also dealing with Expo and the Wilshire subway, but would be comparatively uncontroversial and wouldn't involve opposition from the Valley papers, which the provincial sons-of-bitches always oppose the Westside subway since it doesn't help them (and I've lived here for three months and haven't been on their Orange Line yet, thankyouverymuch). I don't know the condition of the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass, so I'm unclear on whether or not there's a median to run it down like they do on the 105 with the green line, which honestly wouldn't be so bad but for the fact that it goes nowhere; a Sepulveda LRT would go places ;p.
May 26 2007, 18:29:00 UTC 5 years ago
re: turns. You just reminded me of the Chicago subway system (I lived there the first 40 years of my life). There are more curves than the route to Petticoat Junction, even underground. :D Those turns make a hellish racket, especially in the subways. I think the weird places the subways (and the elevated) ran had a lot to do with railroad right-of-ways (rights-of-way?). The powers that were didn't want to pay for them, so the routes got to be pretty torturous.
I miss the El...
May 26 2007, 20:39:22 UTC 5 years ago
Subway stop at or at least near UCLA makes tons of sense to me too. Students and teachers are perfect targets for public transit. (I was listening to an NPR story about a UCLA student that was commuting from East LA and it took her like 2.5 hours each way on the bus...she would end up packing a whole week's worth of clothes and camping out on the campus for days at a time rather than spending that much time going back and forth daily! Yipe...)
May 27 2007, 16:29:40 UTC 5 years ago
August 6 2007, 08:43:51 UTC 4 years ago
A Westsider's opinion...
Yeah, have to agree w/ everyone else -- Wilshire subway = good, slow-a** routes w/ turns = bad. However, as all us Westsiders know, we have this weird shifting city grid, so the straight subway actually doesn't have to follow Wilshire strictly to stay relatively straight.And, of course, people taking trains are generally willing to walk a few blocks to get where they're going, especially if you trick them by making the station exits a bit away from the actual tracks, but closer to where they want to go. Thought I'd draw out what I'm talking about -- how cool would this train line be:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1077/102
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1400/102
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1023/102
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1257/102
Key: The thin line is the location of actual train tracks. The dots are the above-ground station locations, and the thick lines are underground walkways that are, for all intents and purposes, within each station.
BTW -- if we're really talking about a BAZILLION dollars, why not build one line down from the valley into LAX, which then followed the Green Line ROW in the South Bay? Then add another line from Wilshire down Ocean/Main/Lincoln into LAX & out the 105 on the other half of the Green, & we'd actually have a somewhat functional train system in the 310...
August 6 2007, 09:03:59 UTC 4 years ago
Re: A Westsider's opinion...
It seems like y'all are worrying a bit too much about turns. They might slow you down a bit, but frankly not nearly as much as being stuck in rush-hour traffic at freakin' Wilshire and Veteran. Look, I'm not saying let's hook this thing all north and south, but let's not let some idea of speed screw up a good route. If the difference is losing one minute versus serving a huge transit population, I'm in favor of the latter.Although, heh, it's all entirely speculation anyway, right? And speaking of speculation, I agree with you 200% about needing a line from the Valley straight down to LAX. I think that a lot of that could be done relatively cheaply at grade with some cooperation from local landowners. I used to think that maybe it should stop at the Getty or the Skirball but the more I think about it, no, I don't think it should. It should just bust over the mountains as fast as possible and make communting on the 405 look like a really stupid thing to do.
And of course, connecting the Red Line to that is only good sense.
August 6 2007, 09:24:19 UTC 4 years ago
Re: A Westsider's opinion...
It occurs to me that maybe there could be a Getty or Skirball stop, but that those stops would only be hit during the middle of the day. From 6-9 AM and 4-7 PM, those stops wouldn't be stopped at. Maybe. I dunno. Just throwin' ideas out here.