Silliest Question of the Election Season: "Where are we going to park (in Downtown L.A.)"? - Gloria Molina

One candidate made me laugh at loud with a question so utterly ridiculous that I was literally stunned speechless (but not for long).

After complaining about "too much density" in downtown Los Angeles, former Los Angeles Supervisor Gloria Molina asked the question "where are we going to park?"

I am frequently baffled by people who genuinely still expect a 1970's Southern California style low-density, low-traffic, car culture transportation experience in 2015 in the middle of popular urban neighborhoods, as opposed to in the genuinely low-density suburbs.  But for any politician who's been in office for as long as former Supervisor Molina to imply that Downtown has "too much density" in hope of extending her political career just a little longer is among the worst form of NIMBY-ism I've seen in awhile.

Here is a hint to Ms. Molina and anyone else who may be upset about "too much" density in downtown Los Angeles.  Downtown is where density is SUPPOSED to go.

The Red and Purple heavy rail subway lines are there.  The Blue and Gold and Expo light-rail lines are there.  The regional connector is being build there.  Union Station and Amtrak and Metrolink is also there, along with the DASH bus system and buses from every transit authority in the County.  Even modern streetcars are coming back there soon.  Every major metropolitan city in the world has a vibrant downtown area with lots of density and lots of transportation options in addition to driving an automobile and parking a car.

So let me answer the question for the former Supervisor with sincerity rather than being snarky -- for it is entirely possible that someone who is still caught in the old car culture mindset is genuinely baffled about how to respond to the changes taking place to Southern California transportation to make it multi-modal as every other world metropolis.

The answer to "where do I park?" in Downtown Los Angeles is as follows:

• You leave your car at a Metrorail or Metrolink train station, or an express bus park and ride and commute into downtown.
• You leave the car at home and hop on a bus heading downtown with millions of others, or grab a Taxi or Uber or Lyft.
• You use a mode of "active transportation" and hop on a bicycle and walk part of the way.
• You use one of the downtown parking lots with expensive parking rates because the law of supply and demand rations those limited spaces according the laws of capitalism.

To find out more about Metrorail and Metro buses, click here.

To find out more about Metrolink Commuter Rail, click here.

To find out more about Los Angeles Department of Transportation Commuters Buses and Dash circulator buses, click here.

Your local transit authority probably also has an express bus going to/from Downtown.

Is this really so hard?  Downtown Los Angeles is NOT a suburb.

Calling for a transit-only lane on Santa Monica Blvd. - Sunset Blvd. between Santa Monica and Union Station

I consider myself the biggest cheerleader of bringing Metrorail to the West Hollywood environs.  And with luck, the northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX light-rail line will be routed to Hollywood via West Hollywood and its neighboring areas.

However, we shouldn't forget surface transit.  Even with Metrorail, major corridors throughout Southern California are also going to need transit-only lanes allowing for speedy service for buses and modern streetcar trams to connect people to the "first/last mile" of the their journey.  We will need a full network of transit-only lanes all over the county (in addition to bicycle lanes).

Here's a sample pic of what this might look like.

As part of this, in addition to the Purple Line expansion as part of the Westside Subway Extension, there is currently a project to bring bus rapid transit to Wilshire Blvd.

I will be the first to stand up and call for a Santa Monica Blvd. transit-only lane between the ocean and Sunset Junction, further heading downtown to Union Station.

As a transit-only lane, it could potentially run modern streetcars quickly and efficiently.  Just imagine...

Now my willingness to take lanes away from cars to allow for more mobility for transit and bicycles may doom any chances I might ever have to get elected to political office in Southern California or it may not.  (No, I am not a candidate for anything.)  But the golden era of cheap gasoline and the single-occupancy automobile in southern California is LONG behind us.  Even if we "drill, baby, drill", $2/gallon gasoline is gone forever.  It's a global market and China and India are not going to stay in the third world so that we can drive our SUVs cheaply across the streets of  Los Angeles.  Therefore, we need to consider practical ways to expand mass transit mobility affordably like any other world class metropolitan region.

So let's bring a transit-only lane to Santa Monica Blvd. while we continue to advocate for Metrorail.

A Los Angeles eye view of Toronto Transit

Recently I had the privilege of being in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.    Toronto is an amazing city with great people, great food, and a great transit system.  In fact, like Los Angeles, Toronto's is in the process of a huge expansion of its mass transit system -- truly a world class city unfolding.

Though attending a business conference, I had a little free time and I used it to sample Toronto's transit system and to see how Toronto's current system could inspire user-friendly changes to our own expanding system.

I took pictures.  (My apologies for any blurry pics, I make NO claims on being a good photographer.)

Here is a subway entrance and something you rarely see in Los Angeles -- an actual transit shelter for streetcars and buses.

This streetcar and bus stop has a shelter with a CURRENT systemwide map on it.  Why can't we have transit stops with covered shelters and/or current transit system maps posted on them to make it easy and convenient on riders.

Here was my day pass in Toronto.  It works like a scratch lotto ticket.

Here is a daily free newspaper "Metro" that people pick up to read in transit stations.  There was also a Metro free daily that I read on the London "tube" when I lived there.

Here is a fully underground grocery store.  Makes for very convenient shopping on the way home.

Never underestimate the value of CURRENT system maps as well as station area maps to help riders.

This subway car has a sign that points to which side of the subway car will have the doors open.

Here is an electronic map in the subway car that points out where you are in the system and what the next stop is -- very convenient!

Notice the television screen in the subway with accurate up-to-date information

Another tubular type of platform -- very London-esqe.

And because there are people who use paper day passes even with turnstiles, there will need to be human monitors at subway entrances to allow those people through.  (Note to Metro that is considering locking subway entrances -- you will still need to have human monitors at the stations for regional paper pass holders like me.)

Nice how subway entrances are located within office complexes.  When the Century City station on the Purple Line is built as well as a future 5th/Flower subway station infilled on the Regional Connector, think of the possibilities.

Whoops.  This subway station had multiple entrances only this one did not have a human monitor.   Those entrances need to be labeled.

Note this nice weather protected entrance to the subway station.  It gives you a chance to open your umbrella before going outside or closing it before you head down the escalator.

One of the things I miss the most from New York and London subway systems are the buskers.  Why not have quality musicians playing in the system for tips?

Look that something you hardly ever see anymore -- pay phones, plus a lotto stand in the subway.

Look, a convenience store within the subway station -- for buying a newspaper or picking up breath mints prior to that important business meeting.

Here is the inside of a spacious subway car.  The Red/Purple Line cars in Los Angeles are poorly designed  The middle seats should be back-to-back to give a more open feeling.

Look at the clear bag trash receptacles that include recycling and a machine to get your transfer (which Metro doesn't do anymore.)

The downtown subway stations connect to full service malls underneath office buildings.

Here is a subway entrance with two service windows and several turnstiles.

Here are the Toronto equivalent of Zipcars.

What?  You thought gasoline was $1.30 a gallon in Canada?  Nope.  That's per liter.  The "drill, baby, drill" fools think that we can drill our way back to $2 a gallon gasoline.  It is a global oil market and China and India are not going to stay in the third world so that suburban/exurban residents can drive gas guzzling SUVs in America cheaply.

Here is a Toronto streetcar that comfortable rides in traffic at grade.  (Think of how much quicker they would be if these were transit only lanes.)  Modern streetcars are coming to Los Angeles in just a few years.  Woo hoo!

Personally, I think the overhead wires and tracks of the streetcars aren't blight.  They are part of the ambiance of the city.

As part of its transit system, Toronto allows you to rent a bicycle.  All part of the convenience of a transit friendly city.

The one thing I didn't have time to do is ride the ferry to the Toronto City Airport.  Toronto is planning rail links to Pearson International Airport.

Metro can adopt some of these amenities.  Your local city or neighborhood council can adopt some of the others.  Public-Private Partnerships are possible.

Now, sometimes as I discuss the growing transit network in Los Angeles I will hear someone say, "but what about my automobile?  I love my car and don't want to to give it up."  To which I say, "Uh, no one is asking you to.  Keep your car.  There are millions of others who want to have an alternative."  And Toronto, like New York and London and Tokyo and other cities with world class transit systems, there are also millions of automobiles as well.

So here's to Toronto.  I look forward to witnessing the unfolding expansion of transit both there and back here in Southern California.

Is a Sepulveda Pass light-rail line salvageable?

Two days ago I posted my fears and discouragement that the Sepulveda Pass transit corridor project was sadly looking at first glance like it would be an inadequate bus project, rather than the light-rail line between Sylmar and LAX many of believe it should be.

The question remains, is a light-rail project through the Sepulveda Pass still possible?

Jerard Wright, current Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Transportation Committee Co-Chair and former Vice President of the Transit Coalition believes it is.  Here are his thoughts about this (shared with his permission):

I think its salvageable -given that its early in the process- but the key thing is being realistic on funding.  

Don't assume Federal New Starts on this with 30-10 or America Fast Forward programs because those are committed to Purple Line to Westwood and Regional Connector projects at this time. If it shows that it has Federal New Starts potential, then that may delay the project delivery date as it will need to go through another cycle of New Starts.

My thoughts are focus the bulk of the rail energy on the Sepulveda Pass corridor from Orange Line to Expo Line with or without the tunnel parallel to the pass, stretch that $1B+ to link up with as many activity centers as possible so that you can get some stronger ridership data.
Use the Public-Private Partnership ideas on some of the station area planning/developments such as Sepulveda Orange Line station, Ventura Blvd (Sepulveda or Van Nuys), Sepulveda/Pico Expo Line station maybe even UCLA/Westwood Village station to bridge gaps in funding. So that more money goes towards the route infrastructure and less of it goes to the stations themselves.  

The key is, given that this could be LRT, Could this corridor take an initial San Diego trolley approach here a simple no-frills design and infrastructure? I don't know how much construction ROW or easements will be left after the 405 HOV widening project but I would suggest building shallow tunnels and trenches under these easements- if they can- where the elevation shifts and differs.  

I wished Metro spent a little more $$$ on the 405 HOV project to go towards a future ROW for such a transit project as this would have saved money in the long run.  

The Van Nuys Corridor in the long term visioning should be rail, however any sort of infrastructure beyond a TSM would make it difficult to get a future rail corridor. Should the approach be pushing for TSM on this leg? TSM could possibly do the same things as the lanes (such as better signal pre-emption & synchronization on both the Local and Rapid corridor buses and consolidation & relocation of bus stops to expedite boardings which improve operating speeds)  at a lower cost then BRT and saves more of the money needed to push a rail transit corridor north following the intended vision.

What do you think?

Hollywood to West Hollywood to Crenshaw to Long Beach?

I was informed by e-mail that at Metro's Measure R Committee meeting today Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas asked Metro staff to come back next month with some sort of feasibility analysis of a study that begins with the Santa Monica Blvd. transit corridor originating at Hollywood and Highland and continues via Santa Monica Blvd. to San Vicente to the south via Crenshaw with an alignment all the way to Long Beach.

Could this be the start of a coalition to keep alive a Santa Monica Blvd. rail alignment by combining it with a project that would help another underserved area in the south of the county?

If so, this would certainly have my full support. The lines would share tracks on Crenshaw, but that is just fine. In our emerging system, there should be shared tracking in transit corridors that makes transfers and mobility easy and convenient.

I would like to eventually see also an east-west Metrorail alignment that shares tracks on Santa Monica Blvd. between this proposal by Supervisor Ridley-Thomas and one that connects Century to downtown and points east via Santa Monica Blvd., Sunset Junction and Sunset Blvd.

While the ultimate dream for all transit advocates, of course, is a heavy rail subway like the Red and Purple Lines in their preferred transit corridor, most of the future construction of Metro rail will likely be some form of light rail and some modern streetcar.

In any event, the next step for those of us who want to see any type of Metrorail on the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor, heavy-rail, light-rail, or modern streetcar, is to keep the corridor alive for future feasibility studies.

Please attend Metro's meeting on October 28th and submit your comments that you want Metro to keep the Santa Monica Blvd. transit corridor alive for further feasibility studies.

Regular Metro Board Meeting
Metro Board Room
One Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor
Los Angeles
Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.

If you cannot attend the meeting in person, then please send an e-mail customerRelations@metro.net

Look at how far this transit corridor has come in just a few years. Keep up the great work and stay optimistic and motivated. We can and we will ride Metrorail in some form on this corridor within (God willing) all of our lifetimes.

What if the Santa Monica Blvd. transit corridor were light rail?

When Metro issued it's recommendations for the Westside Subway Extension, it sadly did not include the Santa Monica Blvd. spur we were hoping for. In fact, Metro even cut out a future heavy rail (HRT) transfer structure to join the Purple Line at La Cienega. Disappointing news, I know. It is possible that if the Mayor Villaraigosas's 30/10 plan goes through that there might be extra money available down the far road, but that is a LONG shot. Every region of the County will want an "extra" money that shows up from fast tracking Measure R.

On the bright side, and I am by nature an optimist, Metro's staff recommendations did state that West Hollywood had high potential as a transit corridor and stated a light-rail subway might be more viable to qualify for federal funding.

So what would this corridor as light rail look like potentially?

Let us assume that the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor from the Westside Subway extension, "the Pink Line" is planned for light rail (LRT) and looks like this below:

As you can see below the Pink Line and planned Rose Line (Crenshaw/LAX) can be connected very easily via San Vicente. (Both Santa Monica and San Vicente were rail corridors for decades).

The plus side of this option isn't just the one-seat ride from LAX to Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Hollywood, but the possibility for future light rail expansion as seen below:

Very exciting to me is the possiblity of extending this light rail project each from La Brea & Santa Monica to Sunset Junction and then southeast on Sunset to downtown. Another possibility is extending this south on La Cienega to Venice Blvd. where it could to Venice Beach or LAX.

However, these extensions are all far in the future.

If there is to be any Metrorail on Santa Monica Blvd. or serving West Hollywood at all, be it HRT, LRT or even modern streetcar, we need to begin lobbying to keep this transit corridor alive for further and future consideration.

We may be very disappointed that the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor is not moving forward as part of the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Westside Subway extension at this time, and I certainly am. But don't get discouraged. Look how far this transit corridor has come in consideration and energy in such a short period of time.

Come to the next Metro meeting and/or write your comments to Metro stating that you want the Santa Monica Blvd. transit corridor kept alive for the future. It will benefit not just West Hollywood, but the entire region.

What next for Santa Monica Blvd. and West Hollywood after the LPA recommendations for the Westside Subway Extension?

Metro's Planning and Programming Committee released its recommendations for the Westside Subway Extension this morning:

(Although I have admit it is a little eyebrow-raising that this document was released BEFORE the Public comment period was officially over.)

Metro's Planning and Programming Committee recommendations for the Westside Subway Extension

As I expected and as Metro has been hinting at for months, they will go with Alternative 2. This means extending the Purple Line to the V.A. in Westwood through Century City. This means that the full Purple Line extension to West Los Angeles and Santa Monica will not happen at this time. It also means the hoped for heavy rail subway connector through West Hollywood will not happen either, especially as Metro will is cancelling any plans for a heavy rail transfer structure at the La Cienega station:

This structure is not recommended for inclusion in the LPA. The cost of $135 million is not within the available funding reserved through the LRTP for the project. Additionally, the heavy rail option for the West Hollywood Line did not perform as well as anticipated when evaluated against FTA New Starts criteria in the DEIS/DEIR. As such, the high cost of the connection structure is not justified when there may be alternative, less costly, solutions to serve the route through West Hollywood.

While the DEIS/DEIR identifies that the West Hollywood line has very high potential as a transit corridor, further study is needed to determine if a more cost-effective transit alternative such as light rail subway may provide a project that would be more competitive under federal funding criteria. If such an alternative were selected in the future, there would not be the need for a heavy rail connection structure.

So there are really three basic options for those of us who dream of a Santa Monica Blvd. metro rail line.

(1) Since federal funding is out and there will be no transfer station at La Cienega, find the money from somewhere else for a heavy rail subway. Good luck with that. Metro will spend the next thirty years paying off Measure R.

(2) Metro does state that a light-rail subway may be possible. This option would most likely be the Crenshaw-north option, a northern extension of the Crenshaw Line from Crenshaw/Expo up San Vicente to Santa Monica Blvd then over to Santa Monica/LaBrea and then up to Hollywood/Highland. Now there is no designated money for this either, but it would be less expensive to built than a heavy rail spur of the Purple Line.

Another possibilty is a separate light-rail subway project involving Santa Monica and LaCienega Blvds. to Venice Beach or LAX.

(3) This would be the at-grade streetcar option.

The advantage to this is that this could be built within five years with a coordinated effort. It it were put in a transit only lane, it would move very well. Yes, two weekends a year, during the gay pride festival and Sunset Junction street fair, there may have to be substitute buses running, but the benefits to the other 352 days a year a worth it. This could use the back end of Beverly Hills ROW that Metro is sitting on. Would people be prepared to give up a lane of traffic/parking for this? I would, but I suspect some motorists and store owners may object. But who are we designing our transportation network for? People or single-occupancy autos?

NO ONE has been a bigger advocate for a Santa Monica Blvd. rail line than me. Today's recommendations for the LPA are hugely disappointing. But I encourage those others who support a rail project on Santa Monica Blvd. to get behind the less expensive and therefore more feasible options of a light-rail subway or at-grade modern streetcar running in a transit only lane. Personally, I like the light-rail extension of the Crenshaw Line. There would be a one-seat ride from LAX to/from Beverly Hills, Beverly Center, Miracle Mile, West Hollywood and Hollywood. That is no small compensation for not having a one-seat ride to the beach.

However, I am just one person and would like to hear your suggestions about how we should proceed from here forward.

One Seat Ride to the Beach or to LAX?

For Westside Subway Extension supporters, this is our dream:

I count myself as the BIGGEST support of a Santa Monica Blvd. subway project, colloquially nicknamed the "Pink Line".

However, only the first three minimum operating segments (extending the Purple Line west from Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Fairfax, to Century City, to Westwood) of the Westside Subway Extension project are likely to go forward for Federal funding at this time, in no small part because of the money that was already thankfully approved by Measure R for that portion of this project and not the other portions, and because the cost-benefit ratio for the first three minimum operating segments meets current federal guidelines for matching funds.

Alternatives 4 and 5 have the West Hollywood subway spur included. (This chart is also not good news for the City of Santa Monica which wants the full extension of the Purple Line to the beach which is in Alternatives 3 and 5).

Therefore, because of the above chart, this is what will likely be constructed within 10 years if Mayor Villaraigosa's 30-year plan goes through.

Supporters of MOS-5, the segment of the Purple Line west of the V.A. grounds, have little choice but to pursue Federal funding later and keep lobbying for Metro to build the full extension to the beach.

Those of us who support MOS-4, the West Hollywood spur, have a couple of options, if Metro abandons us (even though West Hollywood voted 83% in favor of Measure R, more than any other city).

Option 1) Continue to lobby for the Purple Line spur between Beverly Hills and Hollywood along Santa Monica Blvd. seen above, understanding that we are not part of Measure R funding, and are unlikely to be constructed within the next several years if not a few decades.

Option 2) Lobby for the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment to become part of the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line, which Measure R will see constructed as light-rail between the Expo Line and LAX. The tradeoff would be a one-seat ride to/from LAX instead of a one-seat ride to/from the beach. While the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line to the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station is not funded by Measure R north of the Exposition Line transfer, and as this is a light-rail project rather than the heavy-rail subway extension of the Purple Line, and as it will not all be underground, and therefore likely to be less expensive, it may be more easily funded and built sooner.

Here's a map showing the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment as an alternative to link the Crenshaw Line at Expo/Crenshaw to the Hollywood/Highland station as light rail:

Here is how it would look from a larger perspective:

For many people, the tradeoff of having a one-seat ride from West Hollywood to LAX may be acceptable for not being part of the Westside Subway extension. However, there is no guarantee that the this would be the approved alignment of the northern extension of the Crenshaw light-rail line, which may end up simply going north on La Brea or Fairfax towards Hollywood/Highland instead of via San Vicente then Santa Monica Blvd.

3) Another option comes from the realization that for 30 years Metro is going to be financially focused on Measure R or paying off a federal loan that fast tracks Measure R construction projects. Unfortunately, this means that there might not be ANY funding for am underground Santa Monica Blvd. rail project for at least thirty years.

What if we brought streetcars back to this corridor? Not the historical red cars of yore, but the new modern streetcars such as the ones we see in Portland or in the Cryodon borough of London -- and then run them in transit only lanes?

Here are pics of what a modern streetcar looks like:

Just in case you think the era of the streetcar is over, you should go to LA Streetcar's website.

http://www.lastreetcar.org/

Streetcars are coming back to downtown Los Angeles in a few years and when that happens, demand for the them will grow everywhere.

Here's is my original proposal that runs a modern streetcar from downtown to Sunset Junction on Sunset Blvd., then down Santa Monica Blvd. via the unused right-of-way in the back end of Beverly Hills. A variation of this could have on the western end the route head south on La Cienega and then southwest on Venice to the beach.

To be effective, streetcars on Sunset and Santa Monica Blvd. would probably require eliminating parking and/or a lane of traffic in each direction. I'm totally fine with that, but some motorists and small business owners may object. It may also require adjusting the annual gay pride parade and Sunset Junction street festival by moving them or an agreement to run alternative buses on those days. In fact, as part of a modern streetcar project, we should create transit-only lanes for them to run on, limited to streetcars and buses. In Seattle, buses and rail share the downtown transit tunnel effectively.

-------------------------

Of course, we all want to see subway service on Santa Monica Blvd. and see it soon. However, it is not looking good for seeing it within the next 30 years if Metro decides not to pursue federal funding at this time, which according to their own studies is starting to look unlikely. While the City of Santa Monica will get the full advantage and use of the Exposition Light-Rail Line in the meantime until MOS-5 is hopefully eventually built, the City of West Hollywood and the Beverly Center areas may be left with nothing for decades.

Metro has already spent a lot of time and money studying the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment and knows it needs "something". Plus I believe having the largest vote in favor of Measure R has brought West Hollywood some good will from Metro. It must be refreshing for Metro to deal with a community that says, "build here, build here, build here", rather than the NIMBYs who selfishly have been trying to obstructing the Purple Line and Expo Line projects in Hancock Park, Beverly Hills and Cheviot Hills.

So now that you know where we appear to be with a Santa Monica Blvd. rail alignment, which course of action(s) do you think Santa Monica Blvd. rail advocates should we take if Metro doesn't go forward with MOS-4 of the Westside Subway Extension Project for Federal funding as we all hope?

1) Keep lobbying for a heavy-rail subway extension from the Purple Line anyway and hope that somehow the money will come from some unknown source somehow, sometime, somewhere?

2) Begin strongly lobbying for the northern extension of the light-rail Crenshaw Line towards Hollywood to run along San Vicente, then Santa Monica Blvd, still not knowing where the funding will come from and knowing it is not certain that this would be the alignment of this extension, but knowing it will require less funding as a light-rail project than as a heavy-rail subway?

3) Lobby for modern streetcars to run down Santa Monica Blvd. in transit-only lanes, trading ultimate hope of eventual grade separated rail in decades for at-grade rail within years?

Keep in mind, I really want a subway running on Santa Monica Blvd., so I support the Westside subway extension. I just want to give you a realistic picture of where we stand at the moment at least on paper.

Your thoughts?

An Alternative Pink Line through West Hollywood

Last night at Plummer Park in West Hollywood there was a community forum on the progress of the Westside Subway Extension Project. (You might have noticed drills on Wilshire and Santa Monica beginning to take soil samples.) This project is in environmental review. For more information about this project, please visit Metro's website at http://www.metro.net/westside

There are still three more community forums within the next week and I encourage you to attend to learn more and to communication your support and suggestions:

• Thursday, August 6, Santa Monica Public Library, 601 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica
• Tuesday, August 11, Beverly Hills Public Library, 444 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills
• Wednesday, August 12, Westwood Presbyterian Church, 10822 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles

All the meetings are from 6:00-8:00 PM. The material presented will be identical at each meeting (though the crowds will be different), so pick the one that is most convenient for you.

I am still very hopeful that the Westside Extension will be build with Phase 4, which includes the Santa Monica Blvd. subway through West Hollywood, also known as Alternative 11:

There have been a couple of adjustments to the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment you should know about. As you can see from the above map, there was one alignment at La Cienega and one at San Vicente. The La Cienega alignment has been eliminated because of the inability to design that hard turn. The alignment will run south via San Vicente and the stop will be on Santa Monica Blvd. between La Cienega and San Vicente, right in the heart of West Hollywood. At last night's forum there was lots of comment about how and where to design the Beverly Center area stop. There will be specific Metro forum's this fall around specific stops. If you intersted in how the La Brea, Fairfax and west of La Cienega but east of San Vicente Santa Monica stops or any other stations along the alignments are designed, be sure and attend those upcoming Fall meetings.

This project is current divided into five phases:

1. Extension of Purple Line from Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Fairfax
2. Extension of Purple Line to Century City
3. Extension of Purple Line to West L.A.
4. Connection of Purple Line and Hollywood/Highland through West Hollywood (The "Pink Line")
5. Extension of Purple Line to Santa Monica beach.

Thank goodness Measure R passed. This will fund Phases 1 through 3. At the Forum, I asked the money question: What will determine if Phase 4 will get built? After all, there is rock support in the community for this project. West Hollywood voted 83% in favor of Measure R.

It basically comes down to money. Heavy Rail Subway is the most expensive form of transportation construction. Can Phase 4 be competitive for federal matching funds? That will be the determining factor to getting funding for this project. So start writing your letters in favor of federal funding for this project to Congressman Henry Waxman and Senators Feinstein and Boxer.

What happens if Phase 4 doesn't get the go ahead? That's pretty sad. A lot of people who supported Measure R and who support this project will be heartbroken.

There is an alternative that I have heard being whispered as a possible backup by various transit advocates. It would involve incorporating the Pink Line through West Hollywood with the Crenshaw Line project under study right now.

For more information about the Crenshaw Line project go to http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/default.htm

Here's a map posted on the Transit Coalitions discussion forum by Darrell:

Instead of a Heavy Rail subway like the Red Line and Purple Line, in this alignment, the Pink Line would be a Light Rail alignment line like Blue, Green, Gold and Exposition Lines. This would not necessarily be all at ground level. Portions of the Blue, Gold and Exposition lines run underground and there will be grade separated crossings at the busiest intersections.

This northern extension of the Crenshw alignment would continue light rail up from Crenshaw/Expo up Crenshaw to San Vicente and then head northwest up San Vicente and resume the Phase 4 alignment in West Hollywood.

The advantage of this alignment is that light rail is cheaper to construct than heavy rail, therefore the numbers would be more advantageous for federal funding. Also, Metro will have already invested millions of dollars studying this corridor, received feedback and comment on station locations and design, and have a whole lot of heartbroken people on their hands. There is also a regional benefit. People in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and points south will more easily access LAX. Basically, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area would be trading easier one-seat access to the Westside for easier access to LAX.

I still fully support Alternative 11 for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project. That is why 83% of West Hollywood voted for Measure R. I believe it is the right one for the region's future. However, while this light rail alternative may not be the most preferred or most desirable rail service to this area, it is in my opinion fully acceptable and preferable than the alternative if Phase 4 is not constructed, which is nothing.