Red Line "Subway to the Sea" or Gold Line Foothill Extension?!

[James T]

If it's built, developers will use it as a justification to build more highrise apartments or condos. The L.A. City Council will agree since more highrises will generate more income for the city. Then we'll be right back where we started.

[newportbeachsmostwanted]

1st. I believe that the Wilshire line has been assigned as the future Gold Line, not red.


2nd. I think a lot of people are weary of it (esp. the wealthy north of Montana) who strongly believe Santa Monica will be turned into Rosarito.


3rd. James T brings up a good point. LA developers will use the Gold Line as reasoning to allow their 43 story apartment buildings. As we know from the past, LA city council hates to say, "No."


4th. I'm actually semi-excited about the possibility. I will likely use it (if it's faster than driving). However, how are people going to get to the stations? Will they drive? Where will they park?

[James T]

It will mainly be used for maids who work on the Westside. The affluent North Brentwood crowd will either pick up and drop off their housekeepers/nannies on Wilshire, or the housekeepers/nannies will walk to and from Wilshire as can currently be seen on a daily basis along streets such as Bundy or Barrington.

BTW, there's a new HUGE highrise planned for the corner of Barrington and Wilshire. The developer wants it to be 75 stories high. If we get a subway, we'll see more of the same developments along Wilshire.

[eric2]

There is a fundamental difference between cars and subways (and other public transportation).

When it gets more busy, cars get less efficient, because of traffic jams.

When it gets more busy, subways gets MORE efficient, because they can run more frequently and still make money. (Theoretically subways can get overcrowded, and it happens in places like Manhattan, but LA is simply not dense enough for that.)

No matter what, as time passes more people will be using Wilshire. If the subway is built, traveling there will always be quick for whoever uses the subway. (And the people who move from cars/buses to the subway will leave extra road space for those who continue to use cars.) But if the subway isn't built, the traffic will keep getting worse until Wilshire is perpetually gridlocked.

That's why the subway has to be built.

[pigeonhole]

Why don't they build trams instead?

[LASam]

Originally Posted by pigeonhole

Why don't they build trams instead?

If you are referring to a monorail, I believe the argument against it to be that it would be exceedingly difficult to switch from heavy rail (subway) to tram (monorail) midway through a rail line. Also, there is little historical evidence that monorails are a viable alternative (see Las Vegas).