When Antonio Villaraigosa was elected Mayor of Los Angeles last year, he pledged to focus on expanding our city's rapid transit system. Since taking office, he has made good on that pledge by pushing for the extension of the existing Red Line subway beneath Wilshire Boulevard west to Santa Monica.
The idea of "a subway to the sea" is not new. Long a dream of transit planners, it has been stymied by complex political wranglings and a lack of consensus. If you're not familiar with the history and issues involved in this endeavor, please read my post from August entitled "
Dreaming of a Subway to the Sea."
In the last 6 months, Mayor Villaraigosa has made a valiant effort to overcome numerous political hurdles and build a consensus among Angelenos that the subway should be built. His advocacy has attracted the attention of media outlets across the country, as it is somewhat peculiar that the Mayor of an obviously automobile-oriented town would spend so much of his time and effort on mass transit. Perhaps it's even more peculiar that he's actually making progress.
Now that the Red Line extension seems possible again, the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) commissioned a report outlining the costs involved. The report, released this week, indicated that the entire 13-mile-long project would cost $3.9 billion in today's dollars. That's about $300 million per mile. No one can dispute that these figures are staggering.
The local media was quick to publicize the hefty costs associated with the Red Line extension, pointing out that a single mile would cost more than the recently completed Orange Line busway and that the entire project would cost more than the Orange Line and the existing light-rail Blue, Gold, and Green Lines combined. Of course, this shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone; the existing 17-mile-long Red Line cost $4.5 billion. The fact that subways, unlike busways and light rail lines, run beneath the ground makes them extremely expensive to build.
When confronted with the costs, Deputy Mayor Jamie de la Vega said that his boss was still "100 percent" behind the Wilshire subway and that "any major public-works project will have a substantial cost. The benefits in the long term far outweigh the costs...the Mayor's optimistic that funding can be put together to get this project started."
The Red Line extension may be expensive, but that fact alone doesn't mean it shouldn't be built. Wilshire Boulevard is the densest corridor in Southern California, linking Downtown Los Angeles, Koreatown/Wilshire Center, Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and Santa Monica. While few areas in the region contain the population, employment, and activity that warrant high-capacity underground transit, no one can refute that this corridor does. The Red Line extension represents a bold, long-term vision for this city's future that deserves widespread support.
Yesterday the Daily News, based in the San Fernando Valley, criticized the Red Line extension in a scathing editorial. As an urban planner, an Angeleno, and a transit rider, I would like to respond to this editorial here:
Just months ago, the idea of building a subway from downtown to the beach fell into the category of cockamamie ideas from the past that were discarded once they were exposed to the harsh light of reality.
The extension of the Red Line is not a "cockamamie idea." It represents sound transportation planning. In the 1960's and 1970's, several transit plans were presented to the voters, all of which included a subway down Wilshire Boulevard. While all of these plans were rejected, voters did approve Proposition A in 1980, which included a subway along Wilshire from Downtown to Fairfax Avenue. This line was considered the "backbone" of the system, the one component that would make the entire transit network useful.
Besides the pockets of explosive methane gas under the land, residents of the adjacent neighborhoods just didn't want Wilshire Boulevard tied up for so long. And after all the waste building the subway to nowhere, the taxpayers of Los Angeles County drove a stake into the heart of this fantasy by banning any more underground tunnels.
Although the "taxpayers" approved Proposition A in 1980, they never got what they were promised. The subway was constructed only to Western Avenue, three miles short of its planned terminus at Fairfax Avenue. The reason that the line stops at Western is not that there is methane gas along the route (there's methane gas under much of the city) or that adjacent residents didn't want Wilshire "tied up." The reason is that adjacent residents, namely the wealthy denizens of Hancock Park, feared that the subway would provide easy access to their enclave for poor minority citizens on the south and east sides of town.
The existing Red Line is not "the subway to nowhere." It serves the region's largest employment center, Downtown Los Angeles, as well as Koreatown/Wilshire Center, Hollywood, Universal City, and the San Fernando Valley. It carries more than 100,000 riders each day.
The "taxpayers" did not "ban any more underground tunnels." In fact, the extension of the Gold Line to East Los Angeles, currently under construction, includes a tunnel nearly 2 miles long. However, the "taxpayers" did approve an initiative in 1998 that banned the use of local sales tax money for underground tunnels. Today, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who authored the initiatve and presented it to voters, is supportive of the Red Line extension.
Astonishingly, the subway Dracula has found a new life, ready to suck the blood of our public treasury once again. Thanks to the political friendships and commitments Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has developed along the way to his fame and position, the specter of wasting billions on a subway for the few rather than public transit that serves the many looms again.
Public transit, by its very nature, "serves the many," whether it be a busway, a light-rail line, or a subway. The Red Line extension is not "a subway for the few." The bus lines currently serving Wilshire attract nearly 60,000 riders daily despite the fact the even the "Rapid" line travels at about 14 miles per hour on average. A subway line, unimpeded and traveling at far greater speeds, would provide a better alternative for many of those 60,000 riders and would attract dozens of thousands more.
One such friend, longtime Rep. Henry Waxman, who once cared so much for the public safety he got a federal law passed banning subway construction through the Fairfax District, is ready to flip-flop on the basis of a flimsy report.
While Rep. Waxman continues to maintain that public safety was always his main concern but a review of the history reveals otherwise. His wealthy constituency in Hancock Park lobbied him to derail the subway for several years before a methane gas explosion occured in the basement of a Ross Dress for Less store at Fairfax Avenue and 3rd Street in 1985. Rep. Waxman latched onto that explosion as a reason to label the Red Line "unsafe."
Today, residents of Hancock Park and the Westside are far more concerned about traffic than an "invasion" of minorities. Rep. Waxman's constituents are now lobbying him to help get the subway back on track. The recent report that deemed tunneling under Wilshire safe is no more "flimsy" than the report that deemed it unsafe 20 years ago. Common sense dictates that subway tunnels built under today's standards will be far more safe than a basement. There hasn't been another methane gas explosion in the intervening years, nor have there been any such problems with the existing Red Line.
It is unfair to label Rep. Waxman's decision to lift the ban on Federal money for tunneling under Wilshire a "flip-flop" when he has held to his previous position steadfastly for over two decades.
The political power structure of Los Angeles that does such a good job of looking after itself and not the city is ready to derail Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's massive infrastructure bond issue intended for economic development by grabbing a huge chunk for this boondoggle.
The problem with Gov. Schwarzenegger's infrastructure bond is that not one penny is earmarked for mass transit in any form anywhere in California. All the money is going towards roads. In Los Angeles, the roads are already at capacity, and there aren't many places they can be expanded without negative impacts on surrounding property owners. Transit is the smarter long-term investment for our city's future.
That's unfortunate, because supporting the subway plan essentially means supporting no public transportation projects in any other part of the city for a very long time.
The Red Line extension will not necessarily prevent other projects from being built. The Blue Line and Gold Line were planned and constructed concurrently with the existing Red Line. The Gold Line extension to East Los Angeles is already under construction, and the Expo Line to Culver City will begin construction soon. The only project that is competing with the Red Line extension for money and attention is the Gold Line extension to Montclair. A subway under Wilshire will serve far more passengers than a light rail line in the San Gabriel Valley; while this means it should be given greater priority, there's no reason why the projects can't be built concurrently if enough funding is found for both.
Best estimates for the extension of the Metro Red Line put the price tag at nearly $5 billion by the time it's finished, a figure equal to what it cost for all the light rail lines and the Valley busway put together. Prior experience with Los Angeles' public works project finances, however, would suggest that the actual cost once the subway is completed would be much, much higher.
While the original Red Line was cursed by mismanagement, cost overruns, and construction defects (including a gigantic sinkhole on Hollywood Boulevard), there's no reason to assume that history will repeat itself. The general public and their political representatives demand more accountability and oversight today.
Nor would the horrendous congestion of the Westside be immediately relieved. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority estimates that the earliest the first three-mile leg to Fairfax would open would be in a decade.
There is no way to "immediately relieve" congestion on the Westside. If the Red Line extension isn't built, congestion won't be relieved at all; it will only grow far worse in the future. 10 years is not a long time to wait for a project that will provide a viable alternative for decades, if not centuries. Besides, the "taxpayers" have been waiting for a subway to Fairfax for 26 years already -- they voted for it in 1980.
There's a better way. They are called busways, and those commuters riding the Orange Line every day can attest. Problem is busways aren't sexy. They are workhorses. But the success of the Orange Line shows that they get the job done - quickly and cheaply.
The Orange Line has been a success, and it was built relatively quickly and cheaply. The problem is not that "busways aren't sexy" but that busways are not a panacea. Some corridors are appropriate for busways, some for light-rail, and some for subways. The Orange Line corridor is not nearly as dense as Wilshire, and for all its success, it serves 16,000 people a day, a fraction of the 60,000 that already use buses on Wilshire.
The Orange Line was built on an abandoned rail line that allowed for an exclusive right-of-way. The number of cross streets and traffic lights along the route is small. How could a busway be built along Wilshire Boulevard? Either a lane of traffic would have to be removed in each direction (exascerbating traffic to an unacceptable level) or curbside parking would have to be eliminated (drawing the ire of business owners). Furthermore, there are innumerable traffic lights along Wilshire (one every block or two in many areas).
A busway may work for the San Fernando Valley, but it will never work for Wilshire Boulevard.
There are 10 million people in Los Angeles County and they are all desperate for public transportation improvements. Dedicating so much to one project that panders to the wealthy Westside interest is unfair, and plain bad budgeting.
Not all portions of the County are "desperate for public transportation improvements." Consider the existing system. The Metrolink commuter rail network links the suburban hinterlands (including areas outside the County) with Union Station, terminus of the Gold Line and the Red Line. The Gold Line serves Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley. The Red Line serves the central city and connects with the Orange Line, serving the San Fernando Valley. The Blue Line connects with the Red Line and serves South Los Angeles and terminates in Long Beach. The Green Line connects with the Blue Line and serves communities stretching from Redondo Beach to Norwalk.
The Gold Line is being extended to East Los Angeles, and the Expo Line will soon provide access to USC, the Crenshaw District, and Culver City. By 2010, nearly every part of the County will be served by public transportation except for the Westside. The Westside is denser and contains more housing and employment than most of the areas served by the existing system; it is more "desperate for public transportation improvements" than anyplace else in the metropolis. Not extending the Red Line is "unfair" and "plain bad budgeting."
The Red Line extension does not "pander to the wealthy Westside interest." It's the "wealthy Westside interest" that's prevented this much needed, voter-approved project for 26 years! The people that need this project most are the less wealthy, the working-class citizens of our metropolis who depend on mass transit to take them from their homes in East Los Angeles and South Los Angeles to their jobs on the Westside.
Sure, a "subway to the sea" sounds nice, something the Chamber of Commerce could sell to tourists and to justify the public subsidy of a downtown convention hotel - a sum almost equal to the cost of the Valley subway.
The editorial staff at the Daily News are suspicious of any idea that comes from the other side of the Santa Monica Mountains. People in the San Fernando Valley need to recognize that a project that benefits any part of Los Angeles ultimately benefits the city as a whole. The Red Line extension is not for tourists alone; it's for the millions of people that live and work in this city and need a way to get around that doesn't entail sitting in traffic for several hours a day.
Connecting the Red Line extension to the downtown convention center hotel is illogical. The existing Red Line already serves Downtown. Comparing the subsidy for a hotel to the cost of a busway isn't informative. This spiteful rhetoric clouds the issue, giving undue credence to the Valley-oriented view that the Red Line extension is nothing more than a pet project of the supposedly nefarious "Downtown interests."
The time, energy and money being devoted to this pricey pipe dream ought to be put to better use.
To what "better use?" This editorial doesn't offer any creative ideas for improving mobility in the region, just criticism. The only suggestion offered -- that only more busways should be constructed -- is unrealistic given the issues I described above. I challenge the editorial staff at the Daily News to come up with a bona fide alternative to the Red Line extension that will be far less costly and adequately address congestion issues on the Westside. In the last four decades, transit planners haven't found a better solution, but I'm sure the bright minds at the Daily News are smarter than transportation experts, the voters who approved Proposition A in 1980, Mayor Villaraigosa, Rep. Waxman, and Supervisor Yaroslavsky. They just haven't proved it yet.
Previously on P.U.
Report on Antonio Villaraigosa's Inauguration (7/1/2005)
Dreaming of a Subway to the Sea (8/24/2005)
Wilshire Subway on Track (10/26/2005)
Red Line Extension Clears Hurdle (10/30/2005)
