Dana gabbard on November 30, 2006, at 11:40AM – #1

The timeline on the Electric Railway Historical Association website shows the MTA was created in 1958. There was a monorail proposal floated in 1954, per this page on the MTA Library website (boy, they have added some juicy stuff of late): http://www.mta.net/about_us/library/selectdocs.htm

Dana Gabbard on November 30, 2006, at 01:52PM – #2

The MTA Transit History page explains that initially the LAMTA was set up in 1951 to plan the proposed monorail system. Then in 1958 it got funds from the state to consolidate the various transit providers in the region (something RTD continued).

http://www.mta.net/aboutus/library/transithistory.htm

kenarch on November 30, 2006, at 05:21PM – #3

My --- how things change. Government agencies certainly have a way of super-sizing themselves! There was a very interesting article in (I think) Monday's LA Times about a proposal floated (no pun intended) by the ports of LA and LB to build a heavy-duty mag-lev freight system to get goods out to Downtown and especially inland (Beaumont and Victorville). The technology is certainly there, and if they could build a freight system, just think of what a progressive, motivated city or region could do for passenger and commuter lines, monorail, mag-lev or otherwise.

For some reason (there are many reasons) the MTA is set on the wonderful but astronomically expensive subway system - but mass transit in general can't really make fiscal sense without huge subsidies. I think we as a society have grown so used to cheap transportation (or, rather, the illusion of it) that we don't grasp the true cost of moving ourselves and our stuff all over the place, all the time. I think that as those true costs become evident and due, we will take a far longer and more serious look at mass transit in our city and the wider region. Our continued relevance, not to mention functioning, as a city depends on it.

Matt - Metro Librarian on November 30, 2006, at 10:24PM – #4

The first MTA was formed by the State in 1951 for the expressed purpose of STUDYING, not constructing, a monorail line from Long Beach to Panorama City. That first MTA failed at public relations when the monorail lobby moved in (like the MagLevers are doing now) and offered to build systems for "free" in exchange for the next 40 years of farebox revenues. Farebox revenues were 98% of all of the MTA's revenues at the time, so it was a scary thought. At the same time, the Wilshire Corridor, Beverly Hills, and Valley Boulevard voiced strong opposition to any aerial alignments. The MTA then informed the monorail companies that any mass transit proposals would have to include subway along Wilshire, which meant the cost to build such a system would require a public subsidy. This caused a huge fight between the City and County of L.A. over whether transit should be subsidized or not. The MTA put out its own mass transit plan, the Backbone Route, with at-grade rail from El Monte to Downtown (now the El Monte Busway) and Subway along Wilshire from Downtown to Westwood (it currently ends at Western). Beverly Hills, determined to ensure any mass transit system within their city limits would be a subway only, called upon their State Senator, Thom Rees (D-Beverly Hills), to re-write the MTA law into the SCRTD law in 1964, and give the fledgling public agency the powers of taxation and eminent domain. While the conventional wisdom has mostly been that Beverly Hills has prevented subway, the fact is that they are the originators of the idea, a system in the making since 1962 when Beverly Hills held a groundbreaking ceremony at the corner of Wilshire and Linden drive, two weeks after Governor Brown attended a groundbreaking ceremony near the civic center downtown. Reports and photos are in the Metro Library, come on in and take a look sometime.

kenarch on December 02, 2006, at 02:35AM – #5

Matt:

Thanks for that wealth of information. I remember the more recent wrangling over the subsidy issue and the big problems the MTA faced over safety problems due to some high profile accidents (not to mention damage to buildings in Hollywood). I didn't realize the Beverly Hills position for the subway was the critical item in that history - but being once a resident of BH (in the mid '80s) I can understand why that city would fight a surface level mass transit line through BH along Wilshire. (I'm not saying I agree with them, justthat I can understand it). I've always thought that mass transit lines should be focused on areas where people would really use them - and while the Wilshire Corridor for the most part has thedensity, it is also a part of town where most people are surgically attached to their cars... lines along streets to the south (Adams, Jefferson?) seem to make more sense in a lot of ways. Then again, there's the Aqua line... (is that what the MTA is still calling it???)...

Dana Gabbard on December 04, 2006, at 10:10AM – #6

I'm amazed anyone would question the ridership a Wilshire extension would generate. Just look how many folks ride the two station Purple Line stub from Vermont to Western. And the Metro Rapid buses in that corridor are packed (not just at rush hour). As I have noted before, perceptions are the great challenge we advocates face in promoting mass transit.

David Kennedy on December 04, 2006, at 11:27AM – #7

Yes, Dana, that is the rub of mass transit development in Los Angeles. So many of the people who offer so much advice are absolutely determined to never use mass transit. Yet, it does not deter them from thinking they know what is best. Yes, the Wilshire rapids are very busy at all hours. Moreover, once the connection is made, the value and ridership go up.

Scott Mercer on December 04, 2006, at 01:59PM – #8

Subway advocates are not promoting subway lines throughout the county, only where necessary due to high density of development. There are only a few, easily identifable areas that have such urban density.

That means along Wilshire Boulevard, and maybe down Vermont Avenue. The only other subway project of any note is the "downtown connector," to connect the Red, Blue and Gold lines downtown. That's it.

Any other rail mass transit lines can be constructed on the surface, or possibly with the Silver Line proposal running in the Alhambra trench. Most of these would along rail rights-of-way that are already sitting there, like the Aqua Line and Gold Line Foothill Extension.

And yes, you would get "choice" riders out of their cars for a subway. Not all of them, but some, and probably enough to make a difference. Studies have shown that even the Orange Line (carries only 22,000 people a day...subway down Wilshire would carry about ten times that many) makes a difference with measurably lower traffic along the Ventura Freeway during rush hours.

Geo. McCalip on December 12, 2006, at 11:17AM – #9

Traffic on Wilshire is so heavy that it is sometimes faster to walk. It's usually much faster to bicycle. The amount of traffic is increasing. There is no way to widen Wilshire. The 720's run often and packed.

Given the above facts, the only options I see are: 1. Go up and double deck Wilshire. This would be outrageously expensive and cause extreme traffic nightmares during construction. 2. Go up and put a monorail above Wilshire. This is the quickest, easiest and most cost effective solution. It also makes more sense given the geology of the area (i.e., underground methane, etc., and earthquakes). 3. Go down and finish the Red Line at least as far as Westwood and probably into Santa Monica. This takes longer and costs more than #2 but still makes more sense than #1.

Given the politics of the situation, expect to see #3. When ridership on the Red Line reaches critical levels, you may see a monorail.

Dana Gabbard on December 13, 2006, at 03:18PM – #10

#2 is DOA. The Miracle Mile/Hancock Park crowd will oppose that to the utter ends of the Earth and they are a formidable force.

#1 - see #2

So we can expect #3 in the next 15-20 years. Be prepared for some intersting stuff on this in the next few months...

Juanito on November 29, 2007, at 03:12AM – #11

To the old blue haired bombers of Hancock Park: drop dead already, we need a subway to the sea. There is no way that Bev. Hills would allow any form of elevated mass transit along Wilshire Blvd. Go up to Seattle and have a look at what their monorail has done to ther streetscape, particularly at the stations. Monorail trains cannot switch tracks. Riders would have to get off the subway at Western and go up to the street and then further up into an elevated platform and then WAIT for a monorail (with less capacity than a subway train). Elevated track and platform structures are subject to seismic damage; the line is out of commission until it is repaired. The day following the big earthquake in Sept. of 1985, the subway system in Mexico City was fully functional. Finally, the city council should rezone Hancock Park; turn it all into apartments and condominiums and put those bombers into the mausoleum at Hollywood Forever. Let them sleep on cots and there they can contemplate their futures. WE WANT A SUBWAY TO THE BEACH! Nothing could do more for the future of downtown Los Angeles than a subway along Wilshire Blvd.