- Why do you think LA needs a new subway?
- Isn’t LA too spread out for subway?
- Isn’t subway much too expensive?
- What do you think will be the benefits of a subway that justifies its expense?
- Why Wilshire Blvd.? What is so special about Wilshire?
- Why not more buses?
- Why not light rail on Wilshire?
- Why not monorail on Wilshire?
- Isn’t a subway just a system for middle class people?
- Wouldn’t investing in a subway undermine our bus system, a system that serves more of the transit dependent community?
- Won’t it take too long to build a subway?
- Why go all the way to Santa Monica if the Exposition Light Rail line will connect downtown L.A. and Santa Monica?
- Where do you think subway stations should go?
Why do you think LA needs a new subway?
A subway in the right place in LA can make a big difference for congestion relief and mobility in LA. It can also help improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gases, stimulate economic development and help our community make the move to more environmentally efficient transit and pedestrian oriented land use policies. But it has to be in the right place. Wilshire Blvd is the corridor in Los Angeles for which the subway is a very good fit.
Compared to other forms of public transit, in the right place, a subway has several major advantages. First, a subway system will provide the highest passenger capacity among transit options. In dense and congested urban corridors, that can be an essential objective. And, a subway not only moves a lot of people quickly and efficiently itself, it enhances utilization of systems that connect to it significantly. Also, subways do not disrupt or interfere with boulevard traffic or pedestrian activities at street level. In fact, a subway will enhance the efficacy of both. So, if having a quality pedestrian environment is important on a boulevard, then a subway can be the right choice.
Top of pageIsn’t LA too spread out for subway?
No one is proposing that subway be the system of choice for all LA. We are proposing a subway only for the high density corridor along Wilshire Blvd. This is where the highest employment and residential densities in the region exist and where the opportunity exists for a dramatic pedestrian environment. Other parts of the region should be served by other systems more appropriate for their density and land use patterns.
Isn’t subway much too expensive?
It is true that subways are more expensive to build than other transit systems. That is why they are only considered in the high density corridors where the higher capacity is important and where disruption of the street system and pedestrian environment is unacceptable. However, it should be noted that on a per passenger basis subways are less expensive to operate, in part because they carry many more people and because a subway requires fewer drivers for the number of passengers moved. Capital to build major transit systems is difficult to raise, but operating moneys are even more difficult.
What do you think will be the benefits of a subway that justifies its expense?
First, a high capacity transit system is required in the corridor that stretches from downtown Los Angeles west to the ocean. These freeways and boulevards – Rte 10, Olympic Blvd, Pico Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, and Wilshire Blvd. in particular - are the most heavily used highways in the county and form the essential transportation backbone to significant parts of our regional economy. Of these boulevards, Wilshire Blvd. stands out with the highest residential density and employment density, the greatest number of high use cultural, educational and shopping centers in the region, and among the highest in automobile use and congestion. While other strategies are appropriate for other major arterials, Wilshire Blvd. calls out for a subway system that enables it to carry many more people and do so in a way that does not worsen congestion of its automobile traffic or damage its future as a pedestrian oriented boulevard.
MTA estimates that a subway from Wilshire and Western will add more than 26 million annual passengers. We believe this is a very conservative estimate given that the Red Line to North Hollywood currently carries over 40 million annual passengers and serves a corridor without the number and quantity of major destinations as Wilshire. This high capacity system will provide major relief for east-west corridor congestion and, because it will be an electricity powered system, significant reductions in criteria emissions. In addition, electric powered public transit systems are the best direction for LA if we wish to make major reductions in greenhouse gases.
Why Wilshire Blvd.? What is so special about Wilshire?
Wilshire Blvd. stands out uniquely in Los Angeles County. It has the densest residential and commercial environments and the highest concentration of jobs. It also has the densest concentration of high-use destinations ranging from Downtown Los Angeles, to the Miracle Mile, to the Los Angeles County Museum of Modern Art and the La Brea Tar Pits, the Wiltern Theater, Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood, UCLA, the Veterans Medical Center, West Los Angeles, The Third Street Promenade and the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica. These characteristics make Wilshire ideal for a high capacity system like a subway. It is heavily traveled roadway with a strong pedestrian potential making it unsuitable for above grade systems.
Why not more buses?
Expanding the bus fleet is an essential part of an overall transit program for Los Angeles County including along Wilshire Blvd. Well-maintained, cleaner natural gas buses are vital and well-suited for the dispersed highway grid characteristic of much of LA County. This system will always be the workhorse for a Los Angeles County multi-modal transit system.
However, we cannot rely exclusively on buses and expect to have the most efficient system that effectively reduces overall congestion and addresses economic development needs or key environmental goals.
Buses are inevitably adversely affected by the congested traffic on our streets and highways that they share with automobiles, including on Wilshire Blvd. As congestion worsens, bus service efficiency worsens as well. Even when bus only lanes are implemented on Wilshire Blvd. during peak hours, while the efficiency of the bus system may improve, congestion on the remaining mixed-flow lanes will worsen, as the study of bus only lanes on Wilshire has demonstrated. It will require an enormous shift from cars to buses on Wilshire to avoid this outcome and a perception that transportation planners voted to make congestion worse.
In addition, while buses have lower capital costs, they have higher operating costs that require higher ongoing subsidies than do rail transit systems. Operating dollars are much more difficult to generate from state or federal sources or even from voters, putting continuous pressure on MTA and other bus operators to raise fares.
As well, we must keep in mind, even the cleanest natural gas buses have higher criteria emissions and greenhouse gas emissions than electric powered subway systems.
Why not light rail on Wilshire?
Light rail has a major role to play in LA County transit, especially where existing rights of way are available and can be easily developed, such as the Exposition Corridor. However, light rail would not be an appropriate system for the Wilshire or other east west corridors. It would have significantly less capacity than a subway and would cause significant disruption of traffic and the potential for a pedestrian environment on Wilshire Blvd.
Why not monorail on Wilshire?
Monorail may find an appropriate place in LA’s mix, like light rail, but not on Wilshire Blvd. With capacity similar to light rail, a monorail system would have much less capacity than a subway. This inherent capacity limitation is worsened by the loss of a seamless transit path from downtown Los Angeles to the Westside, since a passenger would be required to transfer at Western to proceed further west. We believe this loss of capacity is itself sufficient reason to reject monorail as an option on Wilshire, given its high ridership potential. However, in addition, a monorail system will unavoidable adversely affect the already heavily congested street level traffic and compromise the prospects for a truly pedestrian environment on Wilshire. These concerns frequently prompt very vigorous neighborhood opposition to monorails when they are proposed for heavily used corridors with significant pedestrian amenities.
A continuation of the subway down Wilshire from Western avoids these capacity limitations and interference with traffic and pedestrian activities. The capitol costs are higher, but the transit benefits are much higher.
Isn’t a subway just a system for middle class people?
This is one of the most surprising claims of opponents of subways, since the evidence demonstrates so clearly that it is false. It is certainly true that the demographics of the transit user in LA is heavily lower-income working families, many of whom are people of color, many of whom are transit dependent. This is true on the bus system, where almost 90% are low-income and non-Caucasian. But it is also quite true on the rail system where about 80% are low income and non-Caucasian. On the bus system the median income of the rider is $12,000 per year, while on the rail system it is only modestly better at $22,000 per year, still low income.
However, one goal of our transit system should be to get people out of their cars, to attract middle-income passengers who would otherwise simply continue to use their cars and keep our congestion and air pollution the worst in the nation. Not only is a socially and economically integrated transit system a better social outcome (we have rejected separate but equal in our education system, why is it a better idea in public transit?), it is better for the economic health of the transit system and far better for our environment. If middle-income community members actually use the transit system in higher numbers because they are attracted to light rail or subway systems that offer greater certainty and convenience than buses, then they will be more willing to support measures that ensure the financial viability of the transit system. That will benefit all users.
In addition, it is vital that we get these auto users out of their cars and on to transit if we have any hope of improving our congestion and our air quality and addressing our greenhouse gas emissions. Electric rail systems are easily the superior environmental option because such systems are much easier to control for overall emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Wouldn’t investing in a subway undermine our bus system, a system that serves more of the transit dependent community?
By offering ready more efficient access to a large number of regional destinations, the subway system will make the regional bus system a more effective and attractive system to users. Bus passengers who wish to travel destinations along Wilshire or even to the beach at the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica will be able to transfer to the subway and ride quickly and comfortably to their destination where now they must transfer aboard buses that are often caught in the surface traffic congestion on the Westside.
Some say that the subway will draw funds away from the investments in the bus system or resources that could keep bus fares low. However, there are few funds the MTA now has that can be used for subway planning, design or construction and less yet that can also be used for bus operations. A 1998 ballot measure, Proposition A, prohibits use of any of the local taxes generated by Proposition A (1980) or Proposition C (1990) for “planning, designing, constructing or operating any new subway.”
Won’t it take too long to build a subway?
Maybe, but not necessarily. This depends entirely on whether and how we raise the funds for its design and development. If we continue to rely upon state and federal dollars for its development, or rely upon existing local resources that are restricted from use for subway design and development, then we could indeed wait a long time before we see this subway project completed. If, however, our regional leadership determines to find new local resources, for example, with a county ballot measure that raises funds specifically for transportation, then it is possible that this project could be completed in a decade.
Why go all the way to Santa Monica if the Exposition Light Rail line will connect downtown L.A. and Santa Monica?
While the Exposition Light Rail line and the Subway to the Sea are both proposed to run from Downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, that is about all they will have in common. Assuming each are completed, they will serve quite different destinations and quite different passenger communities en route. As a result MTA regards them as different corridors for planning purposes. In the course of planning the subway, once the project is committed to Westwood and from there to West Los Angeles, MTA will be required to assess the new passenger demand that would be generated by a completion of the subway from there to Santa Monica in light of what will certainly be a completed and operating Exposition Line. While we believe that the ridership will justify extending the subway to the sea, it will be MTA who will make that decision at that time.
Where do you think subway stations should go?
We do not have a judgment to offer about individual stations sites at this time, though we certainly believe that there are important destinations, such as Century City and Westwood/UCLA that must rate a station. Beyond this, MTA should develop in an open public process and a criteria for locating station sites that is clear and fair – and then follow that criteria.