Another Way to Provide Bus Rapid Transit to Cal State Northridge

Metro Los Angeles is currently studying a bus rapid transit (BRT) line for the North San Fernando Valley.  Here is what the current alternatives look like.

However, all is not well with this project.  Acccording to Numble on Twitter, Metro is considering caving into NIMBYs on this project.

This would be disastrous for transit riders in this area.  In particular, this would leave California State University, Northridge (CSUN) out of our growing mass transit system.  If this terrible-case scenario occurs, I've been thinking about how else to serve CSUN.

One idea that has long been discussed is to have branch services from the "Orange" Line (now the "G" Line) on other busy north-south corridors in the San Fernando Valley.  One of these proposed busy corridors is Reseda Blvd.  

My proposal would be to have a branch service of the G-Line going north-south on Reseda, east-west on Nordhoff, and CSUN along White Oak as seen below.  We'd have G1 service between North Hollywood Metrorail station and Chatsworth Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and G2 service between North Hollywood Metrorail station and CSUN.

But we can see from this map even though we would still serve CSUN, what a large east-west gap in mass transit we are leaving out of our system in the North San Fernando Valley.  I really hope NIMBYs do not prevail here.  We need BOTH the proposed North San Fernando Valley BRT and a Reseda Blvd. BRT.

Also, coming to the San Fernando Valley will be a "Sepulveda" Line (hopefully as heavy rail and not monorail) between the Valley and the Westside, as well as a planned BRT route connecting North Hollywood to Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena.

A note for the future.  Eventually, the G-Line may be upgraded to light-rail.  A further enhancement I would support for this new Reseda Blvd. BRT is to run it between Universal City station and CSUN via Ventura Blvd.  Somehow Ventura Blvd. keeps getting left out of our San Fernando Valley mass transit conversation, when we should already be installing bus lanes on it.

And, of course, we should be doubletracking and upgrading the Metrolink/Amtrak rail corridors as well.

What do you think?

Why I like the "Hybrid" Option for the Crenshaw Northern Extension Project

As we get closer to Metro selecting a "Locally Preferred Alternative" for the Crenshaw Northern Extension Project, a new round of community meetings is about to take place.  On the menu for discussion will be a new "hybrid" option (seen below).

The more I study the "hybrid" alignment (A2 plus A/A1 above) for the Crenshaw Northern Extension Project the more I like it. At first the geometry of the line threw me, but this option hits all the major job/entertainment/retail generators north of Wilshire.

Going to where people actually want to go is what will make this line the tremendous success it is destined to be.  People don't just travel through this area, they travel TO this area and within this area.

Let's just remember why we need this line.  It intersects so many other Metro lines (Green, Expo, Purple, Red) and major bus corridors (Santa Monica, La Cienega, Fairfax,,etc.) that it will increase ridership on the whole system.  Plus, this extension will vastly increase mobility for disadvantaged communities with direct connections to job and entertainment centers like Cedars-Sinai, Beverly Center, The Grove, and West Hollywood.

There is a minority of people out there that prefer La Brea for this alignment. They look at La Brea on the map, see a "straighter" line, and say, "We want speed, speed, speed!  They don't seem to care about direct access to any of the ridership generators between Wilshire Blvd. and Hollywood Blvd. further west (like Cedar Sinai, the Beverly Center, the Grove, West Hollywood, etc.).  This is why I do not agree with them:

As a daily user of the transit system I think to myself, "If the options are: (A) riding a few more minutes underground to go directly to the location I actually want to go (West Hollywood, Cedar Sinai, Beverly Center, The Grove, etc.), or, (B) getting off the train at La Brea and THEN waiting above ground to transfer to a bus and THEN riding through heavy surface traffic to finally get where I actually want to go, well (B) really does not seem like the "speed" option after all, does it?

I'm sure a nurse riding from Leimert Park to her job at Cedar Sinai would rather take a quick one-seat ride underground rather than ride to Beverly/LaBrea, wait for a bus at LaBrea for however long, and then ride stop and go in heavy traffic to finally get to her job.  When you conceive the whole trip, the notion of the "speediest" option changes.

I say build this line and put the alignment directly stopping where people actually want to go.  And make its northern terminus at the Hollywood Bowl to help relieve nighttime Hollywood Bowl traffic there.

I believe the few extra minutes of curves required to make these stops, which no one will notice or care about underground, will still be MUCH quicker than sitting in heavy surface traffic above ground, and will not at all be a deterrent to its success.

I also reject talk of breaking this project up separately into “two-lines” as there is only going to be one line built in this area for decades.  By the time all of the current Measure R and Measure M projects are finished it will be decades for a second line is even proposed.  So don't be fooled or distracted by those people advocating a  so-called "speed" line on La Brea today while leaving second "access" line to be proposed and built at some vague date decades later (or never).

There are also those who will wonder, "what about the people traveling from the San Fernando Valley to LAX?"  Good question! I think most of them will likely use the coming Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project (seen below), but will still find this hybrid underground alignment MUCH quicker than sitting in surface traffic.

The next round of Metro Community Meetings for this project are soon.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 6 – 8 p.m.

Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Blvd. West Hollywood, CA 90046.

Accessible via: West Hollywood Cityline and Metro bus lines 2, 4, 212, and 704.

Thursday, October 24, 2019, 6 - 8 p.m.

Wilshire Crest Elementary School, 5241 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90036.

Accessible via: Metro bus lines 20, 28, 212, 312, 720 and 728.

Saturday, October 26, 2019, 10 a.m.  – 12 p.m.

Virginia Road Elementary School, 2925 Virginia Road, Los Angeles, CA 90016.

Accessible via: DASH, Metro Bus lines 37, 38, 210, 710 and 740.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 6 – 8 p.m.

Rosewood Avenue Elementary School, 503 N. Croft Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90048.

Accessible via: DASH, West Hollywood Cityline and Metro bus lines 10, 14, 105 and 705

I will see you there!  You can also submit your feedback about this line to crenshawnorth@metro.net.

Although I very proudly sit on the City of West Hollywood's Transportation Commission, this blog post is my own opinion.  I am not claiming to speak for the Commission, the City Council, or our hardworking city staff.  

WHAM (West Hollywood Advocates for Metro Rail)

West Hollywood is putting its efforts on bringing the Metrorail to West Hollywood through an alignment connecting the under construction Crenshaw/LAX line with the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station.

Full disclosure.  I joined WHAM.  www.whamrail.com 


I hope you do too.

West Hollywood's New Flyer to Advocate for Metrorail

As a current member of the West Hollywood Transportation Commission, I cannot and will not discuss items appearing before the commission in my blog.  However, I was told at last night's meeting that I can share the following with you.

Below are two sides of a draft flyer that West Hollywood will be disseminating to advocate for bringing Metrorail to West Hollywood -- in this case as the connecting link between the Crenshaw/LAX line and the Red Line station at Hollywood/Highland.  The proposed connection with the Purple Line would be a transfer between a proposed SanVicente/Wilshire station and the coming LaCienega/Wilshire Purple Line station.

Fun huh!.

Exciting Transportation Questions to ask West Hollywood City Council Candidates

As I stated in my prior post, West Hollywood City Election 2015: The truth no one will say about traffic and parking, it was very depressing to watch a West Hollywood City Council election where the only transportation issues discussed, if at all, were about traffic and parking for single-occupancy automobiles.  How retro.

It is not 1987 anymore, and Measure R passed in West Hollywood by 85% of the vote, more than any other city in Los Angeles county.  While the well-being of driving and parking single-occupancy automobiles is obviously important to many people, it should not be the only discussion we are having about transportation in this city.

Here are examples of transportation issues that I, and you, can ask the City Council candidates, and discuss among your friends and neighbors, in the upcoming West Hollywood June 2nd special election directly:

• Do you favor a transit option that connects West Hollywood to the Red Line in Hollywood directly, without requiring people to transfer, perhaps running non-stop between West Hollywood and Hollywood/Highland or Hollywood/Vine (my preferred option)?

• Should that option be extending the Pickup Line to Metro, or reconfiguring West Hollywood's CityLine Shuttle?

• Do you favor reconfiguring Fountain Avenue in West Hollywood so it is no longer a "speedway" and gives up a lane of traffic for bike lanes and more residential parking?

• How would you help bring Metrorail to West Hollywood?  

• Should we hold out for a below-ground Metrorail option that make take a few decades to be built or an above ground option that can be built in a few years?

• And if it is an above-ground Metrorail option, should it be like the modern streetcars soon coming to Downtown Los Angeles, or an elevated light-rail option that will allow for speed, but take away lanes for parking and possibly traffic?

• Should we partner with Hollywood, SilverLake, and Echo Park to create a transit line from Downtown to West Hollywood along Santa Monica and Sunset Boulevards?

• She we create transit-only lanes for buses on Santa Monica Boulevard, similar to what is coming very soon to Wilshire Boulevard?

• How can we partner with neighboring cities and neighborhoods to create transit projects that will serve this whole region?

• Where else can we add bicycle lanes to West Hollywood and how else can we improve bicycle infrastructure?

• As West Hollywood is considered a very "walkable city", how can we continue to improve the pedestrian experience?

• How does West Hollywood adapt to the world of  Uber/Lyft and its relationship to Taxi and Limosuine services?

• How do we add mobility to the Sunset Strip? 

• Are parking meters on Santa Monica Blvd. and Sunset Blvd. really the most efficient use of that road space and should we try relocating that parking, by acquiring or building new parking, to free that space up for more mobility?

So if these questions are at least as interesting to you as the same old debates about parking meters for single-occupancy automobiles, feel free to ask them of our candidates, so that our transportation discussion for the special election is much more well-rounded than the general election we just completed.

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.

High Speed Rail between Las Vegas & Los Angeles is getting closer

The awesome website Curbed L.A. posted an article yesterday, "Vegas High-Speed Rail Starts Planning Extension to Palmdale", this is very good news.

KCET also covers this story:  "Desert High-Speed Rail Stays On Track: Groundbreaking Could be in a Year"

This Los Angeles to/from Las Vegas project is probably an easier High Speed Rail project to get off the ground than the also needed SoCal to/from NoCal project.

Some people believe the first LA-Vegas HSR route should have gone through the Cajon Pass, but I imagine it is more affordable to go through the high desert than plow through a mountain range.  There is already Metrolink commuter rail service between Los Angeles and Palmdale.  It wouldn't take much to electrify that portion to have a one-seat ride between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

Another route can eventually be build between Vegas and the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.  Let's get ONE route up and running.

Also, having High Speed Rail to Palmdale, makes it more enticing for Northern California to connect as a San Francisco Bay Area to/from Las Vegas High Speed Rail route can hook in via Palmdale.

When you hear a politician talk about how we cannot "afford" high speed rail in America and other infrastructure improvements, ask them how is America supposed to compete and stay relevant in the global economy in the 21st Century if we don't, especially as the era of cheap oil is forever gone?  What is the cost to our productivity if we can't and are forever dependent on oil to move goods and people?

However, before you do that, ask that politician how much campaign cash he is receiving from the oil lobby, which is desperate to stop ANY high speed rail project from being built in America and also contribute to ideological think tanks that "coincidentally" generate studies to show how we cannot "afford" high speed rail.

I will see you on the high speed train to Vegas!

Lobbying for the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line via West Hollywood in 2013

Next year Metro will probably be working on its SRTP (Short Range Transportation Plan).

Metro creates a LRTP (Long Range Transportation Plan) for thirty years, which it revised every five years or so, and a SRTP for the next five years.

At the February 2012 meeting of the Transportation Committee of the Westside Council of Governments the following was expressed and recorded in the Notes of the Feburary 2012 Meeting:

METRO will be updating its Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) in 2013 and is currently identifying projects for inclusion in its Strategic Element. This would be the time to support the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood.  Information on schedule and milestones will be provided the committee. It was noted that our resources include lobbyists, sending letters to the appropriate entities, become more engaged in meeting, and coordination with other COGs.

I certainly agree with this and will do everything I can do as an individual to support this.

By the way, if you want to see Metrorail extended to Hollywood via West Hollywood, it wouldn't hurt to ask candidates for Federal, State, County and City governments to support this as part of their campaign.

What will eventually be the northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line to Hollywood?

On the new Expo light-rail line there is a stop at Crenshaw & Expo, which will eventually be a transfer to the proposed Crenshaw/LAX light-rail line.  Most transit advocates in Southern California see the natural northern terminal of the Crenshaw/LAX Line not at the Expo Line where the first operating segment will end, but past Wilshire Blvd. and the Purple Line to the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station.

When Metro finally studies this transit corridor they will have to consider the needs of all the stakeholders in the area.

There will be those people who primarily care about getting the quickest and most direct route between Crenshaw/Expo and the Hollywood/Highland station and they will want La Brea as the alignment obviously.

Then there will be people who live, work, play and want to travel to/from high ridership destinations in between these two points, especially West Hollywood and surrounding destinations, who were disappointed in not being part of the Westside subway extension and whom voted most heavily in favor of Measure R, and their primary concern will be accessing Metrorail at all.

Metro will need to balance the cost of building a longer alignment to provide access to more stakeholders with the desire of those who primarily want speed through this area to create an alignment that serve the most people with the maximum ridership. ALL of the potential alignments through this area would still be quicker than riding a bus through traffic.

Here are the most likely potential alignments of the northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX line as shown in this Metro study map:

Here are my guesses of the most probable potential stops with their accompanying ridership destinations, along with the length of these potential alignments connecting Crenshaw/LAX at the Expo Line station with Hollywood/Highland:

All of these four alignments would have stations at

- Crenshaw and Expo (transfer to Expo Line)

- Crenshaw and Adams

- San Vicente and Pico/Venice

Here is where they differ on the route to the Hollywood / Highland Red Line station

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

SAN VICENTE / LA BREA ALIGNMENT (4.2 miles total)

- Wilshire/LaBrea (needs to junction with LaBrea/Wilshire Purple Line station)

- Beverly/LaBrea

- SantaMonica/LaBrea 

- Hollywood/Highland

(This route misses nearly all of the high-ridership generators in this area, and would be sort of like running the Blue Line up Alameda instead of the heart of downtown to Union Station.  You'd get there the quickest, but miss where the riders are actually going in between.)

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

SAN VICENTE / FAIRFAX / SUNSET ALIGNMENT (6.0 miles total)

- Wilshire/Fairfax (LACMA/Museum Row - needs to junction with Fairfax/Wilshire Purple Line station

- Beverly/Fairfax (Grove/Farmer's Market/CBS)

- Santa Monica Blvd/Fairfax (West Hollywood east)

- Sunset/Gardner (Sunset Strip access)

- Hollywood/Highland

(As this was the original northern alignment of the Red Line before the NIMBYs thwarted the Purple Line extension through Hancock Park back in the 80's, there would be sweet justice of a Fairfax alignment eventually being built.)

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

SAN VICENTE / LA CIENEGA / SUNSET ALIGNMENT (around 7 miles total)

- Wilshire/SanVicente (transfer junction with LaCienega/Wilshire Purple Line station)

- Beverly/LaCienega (Beverly Center / Cedar Sinai)

- SantaMonica/LaCienega (heart of West Hollywood)

- Sunset/Fairfax (Sunset Strip access)

- Hollywood/Highland

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

SAN VICENTE/SANTA MONICA BLVD. ALIGNMENT (7.3 miles total)

- Wilshire/SanVicente (transfer junction with LaCienega/Wilshire Purple Line station)

- SanVicente/Beverly (Beverly Center / Cedar Sinai)

- SantaMonica/SanVicente (heart of West Hollywood)

- Santa Monica/Fairfax (West Hollywood east)

- Santa Monica/LaBrea

- Hollywood/Highland

(This alignment has the advantage of the portion north of Wilshire as already having been studied by Metro as part of the Westside subway extension.)

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

Why not have two or three separate Metro rail lines some people might ask?  Why not have one line traveling only on LaBrea for speed between Hollywood and LAX and another separate line entirely that integrates West Hollywood and environs for access into the Metrorail system.  Why not indeed?  

Well, to be frank, two or more lines won't happen because of MONEY -- because nearly all of this light-rail line will have be constructed underground.   (Look at the current difficulty in getting the Wilshire Blvd. subway extension and the Regional Connector projects funded and built.) 

If we are lucky and the pieces somehow come together, we will get to have one light-rail subway funded and constructed through this mid-city, mid-west side area.  ONE.  And it is going to need to serve all the stakeholders, or as many stakeholders as possible, in this area, not just those transit riders traveling between Hollywood and the airport quickly, but also those who live, work and play in points between such as the Grove, Beverly Center, Cedar Sinai, West Hollywood, the Sunset Strip, and their environs.

Not just because it is geographically in the middle between the other alignments and in the middle with the lengths of these alignment, I think Metro may end up deciding that Fairfax is the best compromise alignment between ridership destinations and speed through the area, but we will see.  Everyone will have their vocal opinion I am sure.  Hopefully, either the SanVicente/SantaMonica alignment or the SanVicente/Fairfax alignment will be built in our lifetimes.

Metro Staff recommends that Line 704 truncation at Alvarado be removed from the recommended program of service cuts.

Take a look at Metro's Staff recommendation on the proposal to truncate the Eastern end of Line 704 at Alvarado instead of Union Station.

http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/03_March/20110324RBMItem20.pdf

Inside the document, scroll down to "Attachment A", and look at the Line 2/Line 704 proposal.

It says "Remove from the Program".  I am hoping this means that the proposal for eastern truncation of Line 704 at Alvarado instead of Union Station has been shelved after public comment.

I recommended that Metro study rerouting Line 704 to go into the heart of downtown as the old Limited 304 bus used to do, perhaps even ending up at LA Live.  When I used to work downtown in the 1990s, I would ride the old Limited 304 from downtown after work and it was always standing room only.

It's a shame that Union Station doesn't have "destination" ridership the way that Grand Central Station and Penn Station in New York, or Victoria Station, Charing Cross Station or Liverpool Street Station in New York.  However, this is good news for riders on this corridor. 

City Councilmember Lindsey Horvath responds to our West Hollywood Public Transit Questionnaire

Here is West Hollywood City Councilmember Lindsey Horvath's reply to our Public Transit Questionnaire. (We thank her and all the candidates who take time out of their busy schedules to address these issues):

(1) Do you support continuing efforts to bring Metrorail to West Hollywood,and if so, with what alignment?

Yes, I absolutely support continuing these efforts. I am disappointed that we were not successful in bringing an extension to West Hollywood at this time, but we were successful in ensuring that the MTA will fund a study of various routes through West Hollywood for future projects. I know this is how the Gold Line extension got started, and I am willing to do the work necessary to see this process through. Our residents and visitors deserve nothing less than a steadfast commitment to better public transit. I would like to hear more input from all parties involved--the MTA, residents, our business community, and all others concerned--before advocating for a particular alignment that would best accomplish these objectives. Until we see that extension come to West Hollywood, we need to explore opportunities to connect our City to the line that will be developed. Perhaps a shuttling system, a zip car program, or a shared bicycle operation can connect people who live, work, and play in West Hollywood to the subway.

(2) Do you support extending the proposed Crenshaw/LAX light rail line up San Vicente and then on Santa Monica Blvd. to the Red Line in Hollywood? (Note: This could potentially be a light-rail subway and would provide West Hollywood with a one-seat ride to LAX.)

I am 100% in support of ensuring that LAX gets connected to our existing subway/light rail network, especially if it provides West Hollywood residents with a far easier option to get to the airport than what is currently available.

(3) As modern streetcars are coming to downtown Los Angeles by 2015, would you support bringing modern streetcars to West Hollywood on Santa Monica Blvd, Sunset Blvd. and/or San Vicente Blvd?

This is an intriguing idea, but one whose effectiveness I would like to explore in greater detail before committing to supporting it. I am excited to see how the downtown Los Angeles streetcar network changes the community, and am always in support of effective ways to make our City more pedestrian-friendly and less dependent on the automobile. The example of San Francisco certainly indicates that street cars have the ability to not only improve transportation access and reduce dependence on cars, but also add character to the areas they serve.

(4) Do you support transit-only lanes on Santa Monica Blvd.?

I'm willing to explore all possible solutions to help our traffic issues and increase our use of mass transit. However, I would need to be convinced that transit-only lanes will mitigate the problem of traffic and not make it worse through reducing the number of lanes available to private vehicles. I would further need to see what new construction would need to occur and how it would affect the look and feel of a street that essentially defines the character of our City.

(5) What are your proposals for improving bus service in West Hollywood, including Metro, DASH and West Hollywood's City Line?

The first thing we need to do is prevent our current access from being degraded due to budgetary shortfalls in communities outside our City. This is especially the case with DASH lines, which are dependent on funding from our neighbors in Los Angeles. I worked with LA City Councilmembers to save access to one of the DASH lines that suffered a cutback on account of Los Angeles' budget shortfall and worked to mitigate those effects through a re-routing of our City Line service. In October last year, I also met with the Department of Transportation in Washington DC to discuss the unique issues facing West Hollywood and what potential support and solutions they could offer. New funding is always important to make sure we have the infrastructure available to support successful transit, but I believe we can use our existing resources - City Line, Dial-a-Ride, etc - to provide even better transportation within the City.

(6) What is your platform for bicycles in West Hollywood?

I strongly believe in encouraging cycling as a safe and reliable mode of transportation within the City, especially through the development of bike lanes. This will not only make the roads safer for cyclists, but will also make the sidewalks safer for pedestrians. I am proud to have created the Bicycle Task Force with Councilmember Abbe Land, which will explore the possibilities that not only create the infrastructure but help to shift the community mindset about using bikes as a real form of transportation.

(7) What is your platform for pedestrians in West Hollywood?

We have a beautiful city, and walking is a great way to experience it! A pedestrian-friendly city is a critical component to a sustainable city. West Hollywood is very dense and very walkable, and our urban planning should incorporate ways of making our neighborhoods even more pedestrian-friendly through concepts such as mixed-use development.

(8) Have you read Donald Shoup's, "The High Cost of Free Parking", and what do you think about it?

I have not read this, but am happy to take your suggestion! The bottom line is that reducing our dependence on our cars will improve our overall quality of life, and urban planning ought to make that objective a priority. This is something I am committed to as a City Councilmember.

(9) How would you pursue additional funding for public transit in West Hollywood?

Through the same sound fiscal management that has allowed us to undertake other capital improvement projects, such as our new LibraryPark. The only way to ensure additional funding for public transit during times of economic difficulty is to maintain the discipline that has allowed us to maintain the highest-possible municipal bond rating--a genuine accomplishment, considering the fiscal state of other cities in the area. West Hollywood may not be able to depend on other public agencies to maintain their current commitments to public transit, and I am committed to ensuring that our City will have the resources to pick up the slack. As I said earlier, I personally met with representatives at the federal Department of Transportation to discuss our City's unique transit issues and what funding sources might be available to address them. While it will take time, I believe we have started to develop a relationship that will help us secure much-needed funds to create new modes of public transit.

(10) What else is in your public transit platform that would you like the voters and everyone else who lives, works and plays in West Hollywood to know?

I am dedicated to making West Hollywood more sustainable in all aspects, including by increasing access to and use of public transportation. Our motto here is "The Creative City" and I will consider all possible solutions that could make our City greener, alleviate traffic, and improve our transportation infrastructure. I am grateful that the Sierra Club and the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters have recognized this commitment through their endorsements of my campaign, and I hope that the voters will elect me to a full term in office so I can get to work on turning my vision for a sustainable West Hollywood into a reality. It's time to get West Hollywood moving!

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

Blogger's Note: I was particularly happy to read the following:

"In October last year, I also met with the Department of Transportation in Washington DC to discuss the unique issues facing West Hollywood and what potential support and solutions they could offer."

Why I am voting to re-elect Abbe Land and am not voting for Steve Martin

When considering how to vote in an election, we all have the issues that matter most to us. As you know since you are reading my blog, my pet issue in local government is public transit. It is vital to me that candidates for elective office have a clear understanding of both the needs and opportunities for public transporation in West Hollywood and the rest of Los Angeles County and the whole state of California.

When I put sent my public transit questionnaire to all of the candidates for West Hollywood City Council, I did not know what if any response I would get.

A couple of candidates stated they would get back to me who never did. One candidate, Matt Gonzaga, who I introduced myself to live and in person told me he'd leave "public transit issues to someone else" wanting to focus solely on the needs of renters in his campaign. (If he doesn't think that "renters" in West Hollywood have needs with public transit than he really doesn't understand the issues of either, does he?) It's the lack of curiousity about this issue I found astonishing (and appalling). Any member of a City Council is going to have to focus on a whole range of issues, from land use, sanitation, libraries, budgeting, social services, not to mention transportation.

However, I certainly understand having a passion for a particular issue and politics needs advocates. I recommend instead of running for City Council, Mr. Gonzaga might better use his interests to form a West Hollywood equivalent to Santa Monica Renters Rights which has tremendous power and influence there.
Of the top candidates, Councilwoman Abbe Land answered my questionnaire with thoughtfulness and with a thorough understanding of the issues involved which you can read here.

As a contrast, in an clueless rant in WeHo News, former City Councilman Steve Martin says the following about the decision not to include the proposed Metrorail subway through West Hollywood as part of the current Westside Subway Extension project:

"Perhaps we should be grateful."

He further states,

"The city should stop hectoring our residents about automobile use..."

In other words, in his rant, Steve Martin has positioned himself as the anti-subway candidate. I guess we cannot expect his support in extending a light-rail subway through West Hollywood as is now being discussed in transit planning circles. Someone should let Mr. Martin know that 86% of West Hollywood voted yes on Measure R in no small hope to bring Metrorail to West Hollywood.

However, Mr. Martin's anti-subway rant is very shortsighted. He seems to believe that West Hollywood can plan transportation and development in a vaccum. Even if West Hollywood adpots a strict, zero-development policy, the surrounding areas of Los Angeles will not, and traffic will only continue to worsen in the years ahead no matter what West Hollywood does within its borders, reducing the ability of people to drive single-occupancy automobiles to and around West Hollywood and, without viable transit alternatives, live/work/play here.

Therefore, we cannot afford to have ANY member of the City Council who does not 100% support bringing Metrorail to West Hollywood. Mr. Martin's proposed "shuttle bus" to Wilshire or Hollywood Blvds. doesn't cut it.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman Land still sees the importance of seeking to bring Metrorail to West Hollywood perhaps through another alignment. There is much discussion now of extending the Crenshaw/LAX light-rail line north to Hollywood via West Hollywood, giving WeHo a one-seat ride to/from LAX.

Read Abbe Land's answer to my questionnaire and then read Steve Martin's anti-subway rant in the WeHo News and you'll see the difference between one candidate who gets and understands the needs and opportunities for public transit in West Hollywood and one who clearly doesn't and is even disdainful to our issues.

And just compare their tone when discussing transit issues:

Martin:

"If it is so important for all of us to live close to where we work or take public transportation than maybe Lindsay Horvath should move to Venice or take the bus to work." (As if it is an insult to take the bus.)

Land:

I believe we must find alternative transit options for people, not only because it is one of the best things we can do for our environment, but also that our focus on regional connectivity will enhance the quality of life for all who live, work and play in our region.

And that is why next Tuesday, I will be enthusiastically casting my vote for Abbe Land and not for Steve Martin.

I wish all the candidates good luck and don't forget to vote on March 8th!

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.

What about upgrading the Orange Line to Light Rail?

Let me preface this blog post by stating I think bus service is wonderful, and I support a county-wide network of transit only lanes and busways.

However, I do not subscribe to the belief that a seat on the bus is as "good" as a seat on a train, nor do I agree with the choice of Metro to brand busways with official colors like the "Orange Line" and the "Silver Line".

The San Fernando Valley seems to be left out of mass transit planning in Southern California. Meanwhile the entire San Gabriel Valley political structure is united and is eagerly anticipating two or more Gold Line extensions eventually on the northern prong to Montclair and even Ontario Airport and on the southern prong to possibly Whittier and/or Duarte. The reason for this is obvious. With our oversized, too populous, too few legislative districts at the national, state, county and municipal level, many of the politicos who represent the southern San Fernando Valley also represent and have their power bases in the Westside. All of their attention is going toward extending the Purple Line to the Westside, which of course is the most needed and highest profile transit project in planning.

Just how did this former rail corridor end up as a busway anyway?

From Wikipedia:

The majority of the Orange Line is built on part of the former Southern Pacific Railroad Burbank Branch right-of-way. This had passenger service from 1904 to 1920, with stations at several locations including North Hollywood and Van Nuys. It had Pacific Electric Red Car service fromNorth Hollywood to Van Nuys again from 1938 to 1952.

The right of way was purchased by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (now Metropolitan Transportation Authority) in 1991 along with several other rail road right of ways across the Southland for future use in transportation projects.

The California Legislature passed a law in 1991 introduced by Alan Robbins which prohibited the use of the corridor for any form of rail transit other than a "deep bore subway located at least 25 feet below ground". Later Los Angeles County passed Proposition A in 1998, promoted by supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, which prohibited Metro from using its county sales tax funding to build subways anywhere in the county.

With subway and light rail now off the table the only option left to develop the transit corridor was to build a busway.

The "Orange Line" busway is already at capacity and shows the limits of BRT. The San Fernando Valley deserves an east-west rail project that connects Warner Center with the Red Line (and could potentially be extended east through Burbank and Glendale to meet up with the Gold Line in Pasadena). Since the San Fernando Valley politicos are focused elsewhere, it is up to you and me to remind them that simply extending a busway north doesn't cut it. Perhaps some of you could lobby to get VICA (Valley Industry and Commerce Association) behind an east-west line and a north-south line for the San Fernando Valley. If the San Gabriel Valley is getting two light rail lines, the San Fernando Valley deserves no less.

In Measure R which was approved by voters in 2008, there is a project study for a north-south transit project connecting the Orange Line with Wilshire/Westwood through the Sepulveda Pass. If this were a rail project, many local transit advocates see it logically being extended south down to LAX and north up to Sylmar Metrolink. That would take care of a needed north-south rail line for the San Fernando Valley.

What about east-west rail travel? The most obvious solution is to upgrade the existing Orange Line to light rail.

I asked the incomparable Kymberleigh Richards (http://transit-insider.org), member of Metro's San Fernando Valley Governance Council, her thoughts on the issue and the possible challenges and here is what she had to say:

Here are the problems that would be faced:

1. You would need to retrofit the busway without seriously disrupting existing service, otherwise what's the point? You wouldn't want to inconvenience the existing passengers by forcing them to a slower alternative during construction. The most likely way to proceed would be to close one segment at a time, one lane at a time, then cut grooves into the pavement down to the roadbed and install the rails so that they were flush with the pavement (like a grade crossing, only along the entire alignment) then reopen the lane to bus traffic. Service would continue to run with only a minor delay by using the remaining open lane to run both directions, with flagmen. Grade crossings would require a bit more logistics, especially the major arterials like Van NuysBlvd.

2. You would have to use a low floor light rail vehicle in order to avoid having to retrofit the existing station platforms. This means the existing light rail cars would not be compatible with the Orange Line. So there would be a third fleet of LRVs at Metro; heavy rail subway (Red/Purple), high floor/high platform light rail (Blue/Green/Gold/Expo/Crenshaw) and low floor/low platform light rail (Orange). So forget any Orange Line extensions that would interline with something else.

3. Because of the constraints of construction, the technology will have to be something other than overhead catenary for power. Installing that would require full busway closure for longer periods of time, which puts us back to inconveniencing passengers during construction. Third rail power, like the Red/Purple Line, is also out of the question because of the open-air operation (you can't have passengers in danger of making contact with the electric source). A DMU, like the San Diego system, is going to be far too expensive for this and brings constraints of its own to the process. So either you need a protectedthird rail (very costly; they are experimenting with this in some of the Middle Eastern countries, where cost is no object) or a self-contained, rechargeable on-board power source. Perhaps some type of storage battery that could plug in at the layovers?

4. The street running segment between Canoga Station and Warner Center would have to be negotiated with traffic engineers at LADOT. I doubt they'd give up traffic lanes for the light rail, and I don't savor the idea of running light rail in mixed-flow traffic.

And of course, you'd have to do an entire new scoping/AA/EIR/EIS and figure out where the funding is coming from. Just that last part (the $$$) pretty much means all the Measure R projects would have to be underway and near completion before you could start programming funds for an Orange Line upgrade.

No one has ever done a busway-to-light rail conversion. We'd be breaking new ground, which is why there's no hard research available on the subject.

Hmm. Sounds problematic, doesn't it? However, why couldn't this be the first corridor to attempt a busway to light-rail conversion? I'm game.

In any event, the Robbins bill would have to be repealed for any light rail project, so start lobbying your state legislators if you want to see ANY rail service in this area, for a subway ain't coming to this corridor this century.

What about alternatives? Metrolink commuter rail is in the northern San Fernando Valley, but many people travelling to the San Fernando Valley are travelling to/from a destination on or near Ventura Blvd. in the southern part of the Valley.

1) San Fernando Valley transit advocates could lobby for a subway under Ventura Blvd. connecting Warner Center with the Universal City station. Yes, sounds great. Only there are easily 50 years of subway projects ahead in line, assuming those actually get full funding and constructed.

2) San Fernando Valley transit advocates could lobby for a transit-only lane on Ventura Blvd. that ran buses and modern streetcars. This would require taking away street parking on Ventura Blvd. and possibly losing a lane of traffic each way. I have no problem with this as I don't believe we can or should socially engineer our cities in favor of single-occupancy motorists anymore, but I suspect not a few single-occupancy motorists would object. However, a streetcar is much less expensive than a subway and could be up and running within a few years, while it will be decades before we would see a subway on Ventura Blvd. Here's a fun map I created for a Ventura Blvd. streetcar project to spur your imagination:

One challenge of doing some project on Ventura Blvd. means you need to find another way to connect Burbank and Glendale into Metrorail.

Your thoughts?