Wednesday, May 30th, 2012

L.A.’s Westside Subway is Practically Ready for Construction, But Its Completion Could be 25 Years Off by Yonah Freemark

[ Most of you are probably familiar with Yonah Freemark’s fantastic blog The Transport Politic. If not, I just suggest checking it out right away. Yonah is a strong advocate for progressive urban transportation policy, but not jingoistic about it. He’s willing to ask the tough questions about projects that many advocates often aren’t with an eye towards making rational investments that are all they can be. Here’s a sample of what you’ll find there – Aaron. ]

Of the nation’s public transportation improvement projects, Los Angeles’ Westside Subway is one of the most important: It would offer an alternative option for tens of thousands of daily riders and speed travel times by up to 50% compared to existing transit trips. It would serve one of the nation’s densest and most jobs-rich urban corridors and in doing so take a major step forward towards making L.A. a place where getting around without a car is comfortable.

L.A. County’s transit provider, Metro, released the final environmental impact statement for the 8.9-mile Westside Subway project last week, providing the most up-to-date details on a multi-billion-dollar scheme that is expected to enter the construction phase next year. The project received a positive review by the Federal Transit Administration in the Obama Administration’s FY 2013 budget, and it is likely to receive a full-funding grant agreement from Washington later this year. Local revenue sources generated by taxes authorized over the years by voters will cover the majority of the project’s cost.

But questions about the project’s completion timeline remain unanswered: Will L.A. have to rely on conventional sources of financing, or be able to take advantage of federally-backed loans to speed construction?

In addition, the project’s specific plans for station construction suggest that there are opportunities to improve station layout and do more to develop land around certain stops.

(I) The Project’s Significance

Many of the rail expansion projects being built in the United States today serve corridors with rather limited existing bus service — there are few people who currently take the bus from downtown Washington to Tyson’s Corner or Dulles Airport, for instance, but a huge Metro extension is currently being built to connect the three, fundamentally to build a new market of transit riders.

L.A.’s westside, on the other hand, already has a very large base of transit users, and most of them are concentrated on the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor, which runs from downtown, through Beverly Hills, the Century City business district, and UCLA, before reaching Santa Monica. The three intermediary areas together contain about 150,000 jobs — and most of them are concentrated within a quarter mile of the street. The city’s famed congestion, especially severe in this area, has attracted people to transit: The local and express bus routes along the line — the 20 and 720 — carry about 60,000 daily riders.

It is no surprise, then, that the corridor has been a focus of L.A. transit investment proposals for decades. The Purple Line subway, which currently terminates at the Wilshire and Western station, was supposed to extend much further into the city when it was first designed, but the threat of gas explosions, a lack of adequate funding, and significant political opposition delayed that action. Yet the election of Antonio Villaraigosa to the mayoralty of L.A. City in 2005 altered the situation entirely, as he ran on a platform that explicitly endorsed the project’s completion and he later campaigned for a sales tax increase to pay for the project — 2008′s Measure R — passed by a large majority of voters. An alignment with seven new stations was selected by Metro in Fall 2010 after three years of studies, though final decisions on station locations were not announced until this week.

Estimates released by the agency point to the degree to which the subway will improve the performance of the transit system, whose service to the westside is currently plagued by traffic-induced delays. Trips from downtown’s Pershing Square to UCLA will decline from 55 to 25 minutes. Riders travelling from South L.A. will save 23 minutes on their journeys; those from east L.A. and Pasadena will save 29 minutes (see above image). These travel time savings are enormous — more than almost any other transit project in the country — and will attract a projected 49,300 daily riders to the line.

Though the subway’s completion will likely not reduce congestion on the highways (because automobile capacity, it seems, never ceases to be consumed), those who need to travel within the corridor will get a new, much faster travel option that is in many cases faster than that which is offered by private automobile, a remarkable achievement in the realm of public transit.

(II) Questions of Time

Because all of L.A. County’s voters approved the Measure R sales tax increase, it would have been unreasonable to focus all revenues in one corridor (and indeed, one suspects that such a plan would not have been approved). Thus the Westside Subway shares the stage with a blizzard of other transit projects being funded over the next twenty years, including the Regional Connector, Crenshaw Corridor, Exposition Line, Gold Line Extensions, South Bay Green Line Extension, and Orange Line Extensions, among others. The large quantity of funds being consumed to build these lines mean that under conventional financing techniques, the Westside Subway will not be completed to its proposed terminus at the V.A. Medical Center until 2036. Only the first phase — a 3.9-mile link to the intersection of Wilshire and La Cienega — would be done by 2020.

For Mayor Villaraigosa and much of the L.A. community, this timeline is unacceptable: To have to wait almost twenty-five years to see a long-planned project completed is scary. Yet the Westside Subway’s $4.4 billion cost (in 2011 terms) is too large for the county to raise money for in a short time period.

Thus L.A. proposed its 30/10 initiative — later renamed America Fast Forward — to use federal loan guarantees to reduce the cost of borrowing and essentially use tax revenues expected to be raised in the future to pay for projects today. This proposal, concretized in the expansion of TIFIA proposed by the U.S. Senate in its transportation reauthorization bill earlier this month, would make it possible for L.A. to build its full subway line by 2022, fourteen years ahead of schedule. Advancing the project’s completion would reduce year-of-expenditure costs for the project from $6.29 billion in the 2036 completion date scheme to $5.66 billion in the sped-up scheme. And it would do it without increasing the level of federal grant commitments to the project, just by reducing borrowing costs for the local agency. Because future residents of L.A. will benefit from transit expansion now, it does not seem unreasonable to use future revenues to pay for the project.

Yet there remains a possibility that the U.S. House, controlled by a GOP delegation that has opposed practically all legislation that Democrats have proposed, will decide not to pass the Senate’s bill and therefore prevent the expansion of the TIFIA program. This would put the timely completion of the Westside Subway in serious doubt.

(III) Station Location

Whatever the Westside Subway’s overall merits in terms of travel time improvements, there remain significant questions about how exactly the line will be constructed. After all, a well-designed transit project is not only one that moves people quickly from station to station but also one that cultivates dense, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

Though for the most part the project’s construction has been welcomed by affected neighborhoods, the Century City station — about halfway down the line — has undergone significant opposition because of the proposed alignment. Metro supports the construction of a stop under Constellation Avenue, in the heart of the Century City business district, compared to an alternative under Santa Monica Boulevard, about two blocks north. This is the reasonable choice as the latter alignment runs through an earthquake-prone zone, faces a golf course, has half as many jobs within a quarter mile (10,000 versus 20,000), and would see a third fewer daily boardings according to current estimates (5,500 versus 8,600). Though some locals have complained that the Constellation routing would run under Beverly Hills High School and therefore put students in danger, those concerns are hyperbolic considering precedent in other cities and the obvious advantages of that alignment.

Although most of the stations on the proposed line will have entrances at street intersections in relatively dense, urban areas,* the stop at the end of the line, at Westwood/V.A. Hospital, is an exception. The station exit as proposed would deposit people onto a series of winding paths just adjacent to a parking lot and a section of Wilshire Boulevard that is effectively an expressway (at the intersection with Bonsall), about 1,200 feet away from the entrance to the V.A. Medical Center (see above image). The situation is made worse by the parkland just adjacent to the stop and the impassable barrier of I-405 northeast of the stop. This is a pedestrian-hostile environment that will offer a disincentive to taking the train.

As Metro’s Steve Hymon notes, the V.A. Hospital stop will play an important role in serving the region’s veterans, but terminating the line there misses tens of thousands more people living further southwest along Wilshire in dense neighborhoods. They, too, should be provided improved transit service, but they will have to wait until 2036 or later to see another subway extension because of budget limitations. Many of them will likely want to drive to the station in order to take the subway because of the significant time savings offered, but Metro proposes no park-and-ride facilities there. Though bus connections will be important, the agency is effectively losing out on potential passengers by not providing for that need.

It would make sense for Metro to consider working with the V.A. Hospital to develop the parking lot directly abutting the stop into a high-density residential or office use, considering the significant demand likely to be spurred on by the completion of the subway.

* With stations spaced at about one station per mile, the argument could be made that these neighborhoods are not being served well enough, especially the community situated between the proposed UCLA and Century City stations, which would be about two miles apart.

See the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary and Accelerated Financial Plan.

Images above: from L.A. Metro’s The Source and FEIS Executive Summary

This post originally appeared in The Transport Politic on March 25, 2012.

Topics: Transportation
Cities: Los Angeles

13 Responses to “L.A.’s Westside Subway is Practically Ready for Construction, But Its Completion Could be 25 Years Off by Yonah Freemark”

  1. TJ Deck says:

    I walked and rode the bus (the 720) down Whilshire last April and must agree about the density and jobs already in place along this road. The buses down this road were packed and they had some great frequency (some coming every two minutes) at certain times. Hell, if Indianapolis had only a fraction (a mere fraction) of the LA bus system, transit in Indy would be significantly better. A subway here is definently a no-brainer.

  2. James says:

    I read an LA Times story about this Beverly Hills high school. Apparently the parents are concerned about a gas explosion and put together a short film to try and rally NIMBY support. Sometimes I wonder if LA has the political will for this.

  3. Wad says:

    @James, political will is a moot point. Beverly Hills is challenging the study in the courts, so it’s a legal matter. We don’t know whether Metro or Beverly Hills leaning on the presiding judges will produce an outcome.

  4. James says:

    Here is a follow up on the subway to the sea controversy:,0,734718.story

    I appreciate Yonah’s article, but seeing news stories like these make me wonder if LA will be able to build this regardless of financing.


    I think that legal matters are also political, and getting tied up in the courts is a lack of political will. In the past there were a lot of legal roadblocks on transit issues too. New York had to litigate to get the subways built. Chicago had late 19th century versions of NIMBY issues that prevented the loop from being built for years. These things are overcome often through political will. I mean if LA metro loses this lawsuit will they just reroute it and continue?

  5. Wad says:

    @James, that’s a very fanciful interpretation of political will. By your logic, you could say that subway construction being slowed by having to wait for concrete to set is also a failure of political will.

    Does the threshold of political will mean that all projects need to be so popular that opponents have to tremble and cower like a kicked puppy? We’ll never get anything done that way.

    The judicial realm is different from the political realm. In the judicial realm, the courts can arrive at an outcome independent of political feelings. The ground rules involve both sides citing precedent to make their case.

    At this point, the case centers on the precision and accuracy of the study documents, as well as adherence to public participation and environmental review rules. Lawyers will try to hang or deflect the issues on legal arcana and minutiae.

    And it’s well within Beverly Hills’ and the school district’s right to petition the court on the matter.

    The very fact that Metro spent about six years studying, researching and planning a subway extension, then committing to building it before this lawsuit is, by definition, political will. The “this” in your second comment is a tautology. Sometimes I wonder if LA has the political will for [the political will].

  6. James says:


    I don’t think you understand my argument. Litigation didn’t stop New York or Chicago from building transit. Litigation doesn’t stop highways from being built. If the people want a project bad enough they will find a way to make it work. They will buy out the school, reroute the subway, hire the best lawyers to crush the litigants, etc. It reminds me of sports. Often those who win are those who want it bad enough to train all day every day. They have the will to win. Does LA have the will to build a subway to the sea? Or will they just give up and build some other lines elsewhere?

  7. Wad says:

    @James, I understand your argument. Political will does not change the fact that the plaintiffs have a right to access the court for litigation. They take the chance that the judge might dismiss the claim from the outset, or could end up ruling against them by saying Metro followed the proper procedure within the law.

    In Beverly Hills’ case, the lawsuit stems from what is perceives as a wrong — tunneling underneath the high school. Beverly Hills is not seeking to prevent subway construction; it’s not fighting to invalidate the entire study. Even if Metro loses this case, and loses all possible appeals, there will still be some form of subway running between Western Avenue and Westwood Boulevard.

    So the political will plainly exists. The doubts don’t become true the more times the question is asked.

  8. Alon Levy says:

    James, when New York and Chicago built their rapid transit systems, people couldn’t sue to stop construction. Neither could they sue when they were building highways; the regulations that made it possible to sue were passed in the wake of the freeway revolts.

  9. James says:


    Is that true? I have seen no evidence for this. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise. Take, for example, this passage from a 1904 book published by the IBRT regarding New York’s subways:

    It was not, at that time, supposed that the abutting property owners would have any legal ground for complaint against the elevated structures, but the courts found new laws for new conditions and spelled out new property rights of light, air, and access, which were made the basis for a volume of litigation unprecedented in the courts of any country.

  10. James says:


    I don’t quite understand what you are saying. I thought you were against the concept of political will, but now you seem for it and argue that LA has unquestionably sufficient will to build their subway. Which is it? Why are you so certain when LA has previously failed at this task?

  11. James, specifically environmental legislation created an entirely new avenue of litigation. Without a doubt this makes it more difficult to build things today.

    However, political will can play a role here. Beverly Hills High School is a public school, right? I don’t know California law specifically, but in most places all local government entities are considered ultimately administrative subdivisions of the state, which the state can do anything it wants to. That’s why the state was able to dissolve those redevelopment authorities. The state of California would seem to have many means at its disposal to deal with local governments. Not that I advocate a thuggish attitude – I’m generally a fan of devolving powers where possible – but clearly the state isn’t powerless.

  12. Wad says:

    @Aaron, it’s not clear whether state law gives supreme authority to the state level. In fact, because of Progressive Era reforms, California law makes it very easy to form a city or local-level special district.

    Besides the recent redevelopment agency dissolution, one other move to assert the state’s primacy was the assembly speaker attempting to dissolve the city of Vernon. It’s an exclusively heavy-industry city with a residential population of only 80 — with most of the residents living on city-owned land. The oligarchic practices of its City Council and the criminal allegations against top officals were the pretext for the dissolution proposal, but the city thought the assembly speaker was trying to move the tax revenues to the county or Los Angeles — a forced annexation, if you will.

    I am pretty sure that the state cannot order Beverly Hills High condemned or dissolve an intransigent school board. There are laws protecting localities from moves like this. The state didn’t even intervene in Vallejo’s bankruptcy, where it could have due to financial distress.

    Interestingly, though, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a state agency, despite the name. The organization of Metro and what functions it carries out are determined by the state legislature. And, get this, the state deliberately denied Metro any plenary powers. This stems from fears that Metro would seize the municipal bus services.

    @James, I am not against the concept of political will. I think you misapplied political will to the legal situation that has developed among Metro, Beverly Hills and the BHUSD. The political will exists in the fact that Metro has evaluated the subway and is determined to see it through.

    And why did L.A. fail? You are really asking this? The simple answer: The phrase “catastrophe of epic proportions” would be an understatement to describe our first attempt at the subway. Billions of dollars in cost overruns. A sinkhole that swallowed part of Hollywood. Subsidence that forced buildings to be deemed uninhabitable. L.A. also came very close to losing all bus service on weekends and past sundown to pay for it.

  13. Alon Levy says:

    James, indeed, there was a battery of litigation against els, leading first to mitigations (i.e. electrifying them in the early 1900s), then to ending all el construction in already developed areas (i.e. not Queens), and then to tearing down els and replacing them with subways.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile


Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio


Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.



Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures