🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2024

[cahwyguy]

The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.

Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?

I'm sure it is defined in the EIR, but I haven't had the time -- or frankly, the interest -- to dig into it. Be my guest: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013021002/8

I would expect it to be defined elsewhere, like in the legislation that gives the agency the power to accept or reject proposals based on "environmental impact". But the phrase seems to be bandied about without any clear limit to its meaning.

Well, given that in this case we had a Caltrans statement summarizing the EIR, they were likely not "bandying it" about, but using it in the EIR sense.

[Quillz]

Same repeated excuse for the 710 tunnel. Same repeated excuse for the 710 expansion. Same repeated excuse for the HDC freeway.

Obviously there's going to be community impacts. These express lanes should be built into downtown and along the 101 Calabasas.

So what you're basically saying is we should ignore what communities want. So what if communities are impacted, as long as it's not yours, right?

[Quillz]

I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted.

Based on some of Panda's posts in the past, I very much get the "as long as this doesn't impact my community, I don't care" sort of vibe.

[Quillz]

Building wider freeways helps the folks going long distances, but is horrible for the businesses in the communities they pass through, which lose loads of business.

The somewhat recent 101 bypass of Willits is a good testament to this. There were several articles about lost business. This is also one of the reasons why some of the northern communities like Eureka have been against bypasses.

[Quillz]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.

That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.

Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?

I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.

Then what are you doing complaining about it this forum for?  Shouldn't you be out trying to start campaigning for local representatives to see things your way?  I'd argue that is how things started to turn towards where they are now beginning the late 1960s.  It is so easy to complain on a social media platform, it way harder to actually try to change things. 

Do you recall what I said about Kernals12?  Why do you think that I give him such a hard time when he whines on this board?  That kid is the poster example of internet whining and not taking actual initiative to do anything. 

Exactly. I read Panda's post and he is always claiming how easy it is to do this, or do that, or why this shouldn't happen, that shouldn't happen. That's exactly what civil engagement is for. If he isn't already doing it, Panda should be going to the public meetings, should be trying to get measures on ballots, get public support. That's how things start. Whining on a message board won't do anything. If he has ideas about what should be done, go public.

EDIT: I read that he won't go to public meetings or do civic engagement due to "anxiety." Okay, fine, but the world isn't going to wait for you to get over that.

I see it all the time on my Facebook feed. People complaining left and right about all the things that happen in the world, then I learn they never vote, they never go to public meetings, they never do anything except just complain. Sorry, but people like that are going to get left behind in the world.

[cahwyguy]

Given all the discussion of late, I just had to post this satire piece from Madison WI (and yes, I did save it for the highway headlines, so you'll get to enjoy it again): https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2024/03/the-beet-an-ode-to-freedom-more-lanes

Start of the day

The alarm was set for seven. I woke up at eight.
I pressed snooze too many times, and now I'm going to be late.
No time for breakfast. Not a full shower today.
My shirt is a bit wrinkled, but I guess that's okay.
I expect traffic to be a nightmare, mentally it will cause me pain.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

Leave my apartment, pat my pockets, triple check the locks.
Start my car, let out a deep sigh and affirm myself with "my life rocks."
Oh jeez. Oh man. I forgot my phone. Today is going to be scary.
Turn on the radio instead of listening to my playlist. Traffic report tells me to be wary.
Roads are backed up. Every day feels the same.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

I attempt to turn out onto the street to a long wait.
It's 8:50 now, I'm going to be more than late.
I need to come up with some excuse; we have a podcast taping this morning.
Something grand and believable that makes waking up late not boring.
Finally move onto the street to immediately have to stop. It's making me feel insane.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

The commute

Time's continuously slipping, and whatever excuse I can come up with will be poor.
Cars upon cars flooding the streets, to get over is a war.
There are too many people. I tell myself thinking I'm not part of the problem.
There's a simple solution that can fix everything. I know what can solve them
all. One more lane will make all the pain and strife disappear.
But I'm worried about the NIMBYs and their refusal to hear
any solution that would fix the city would be turned down again.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

Our cars are the ticket to living life in the city.
Public infrastructure is okay, but Metro is frankly shitty.
You tell me to just wait for the BRT, that will make everything better.
But more buses and restricted lanes will cause cars to fetter.
We can be so much freer if we use eminent domain.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

Wind blasts through my hair, endlessly I'll pay
for gas and maintenance because I don't see another way.
You mention walkable cities but think of the cars. Where will they go?
Parking is already hard enough for my gas-guzzling Tahoe.
Criminal speeding with poor visibility in the pouring rain.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

Lobby for more freedom
I decided to be the change I want to see.
I'll go door-to-door knocking for neighbors to hear my plea.
A Common Council meeting is where I'll state my case.
Register for public comment and cry for the need of more space.
"Madison's leaders," after a 2:55 ode to cars I say, "we need to spend a—"
Cut off. My time is up. My comment wasn't pertinent to the agenda.
Surely my passion for freedom will garner me fame.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

But yet there is a chance. This year is an election year, so I'll throw in my hat.
Since no one else will think of the cars, I'll step up to bat.
"Take down the parks, bike lanes and neighborhoods!"
It sounds concerning to most, but I'm running for the public's good.
I will be a single-issue candidate with one thing centered for my campaign.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

I didn't win. My cause fell on deaf ears.
Now for the next two years, every driver will live in fear.
As long as I breathe, my mission will be just.
Next election cycle, I know what to do. It won't be a bust.
I promise to cut down on all of our commutes throughout Dane.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.

[Plutonic Panda]

I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted.

Based on some of Panda's posts in the past, I very much get the "as long as this doesn't impact my community, I don't care" sort of vibe.

This sort of take is exactly why I respect people like Max's post and CAHWYGUY But I really don't much care what you have to say because the vibe I get from you is you're full of fucking shit. The other two posters seem like they have very valid points to make In interested in having a productive conversation. I'm just not vocalizing myself and the way that I should be. You just seem like you disagree with what I have to say entirely and are going along with the façade of you being in the middle of the of the road.

I do care about peoples communities, and I do understand that these types of facilities could negatively impact them, and I support whatever measures can be taken to lessen those impacts.

[Plutonic Panda]

The only issue I have with Max's is, I can only kind of halfway understand what he saying. I get that there is more than I can do than complain on this form. And I do just that. And yes, it is also true that a lot of people on this form are probably more pro highway than they are anti-highway. That doesn't mean that they support in every highway proposal and do understand that some highways can be destructive and detrimental to their communities. Induce is a real thing and is problematic. Mass Transit is a great alternative to cars and absolutely should be focused on much more especially in the United States than we currently do.

These are all things that I agree with and understand and I'm sure the other two posters who I've been talking to here would likely agree with as well, though I'm not gonna put words in their mouths.

When it comes to quills, I generally don't understand what the fuck this person's point is and what they're trying to make other than the fact, they just don't agree with what I'm saying so they're just repeating themselves like a record. I do this to some degree as I beat a dead horse on some issues and I'm not gonna say that I don't. We are all hypocrites in one way or another and if you're gonna sit here and try and convince me or not, then I will no longer take you seriously. Care or don't care about that I really don't give a shit.

But besides some of my elected representatives and I even just went to my local council office here in Hollywood district 13, where nobody was even there, writing to my senators, talking to city planners, I'm open to more suggestions here and Max has provided many great ones as has CAHWYGUY but you provided none.

Now the only other thing I could think to do would be to really go up a step and start to try and put myself in the public image of settling down the anti-highway crowd and pushing for more freeway projects and trying to get people to understand why we need these roads in the continue to widen them even though it may not get the exact results we want. There is no way on God's green earth in this state ever going to repeal a bill intended to help the environment, whether it really does or not.

I'm trying to get into an industry that has nothing to do with roads or transit. I would have to align myself with a certain ideology that could compromise my career if I were to go full out with picket signs starting Facebook groups websites and a grassroots movement to try encounter the transit anti-Car crowd.

[Plutonic Panda]

Same repeated excuse for the 710 tunnel. Same repeated excuse for the 710 expansion. Same repeated excuse for the HDC freeway.

Obviously there's going to be community impacts. These express lanes should be built into downtown and along the 101 Calabasas.

So what you're basically saying is we should ignore what communities want. So what if communities are impacted, as long as it's not yours, right?

And enjoy it because this is the last statement I'm gonna respond to you you on because you just don't seem like you wanna have a genuine conversation.

I live in Hollywood. If completing the BEVERLYHills Freeway Met tearing out 300 feet of right away all along Sunset Boulevard so it could tie in to the original proposed alignment. I would completely support it. I don't see what's happening now with all this gentrification really being much different from how changing the community from the way it used to be.

I'm only on here bitching as much as I am because my community is being impacted by all these lane reductions removals of slip lanes no right turn on red bike boxes and bike lanes that are hardly ever being used and now Hollywood Boulevard is being proposed for a road diet.

I went on what consider an unhinged rant, and two other posters who seem to be much more knowledgeable and reasonable than you with me on this publicly and I realized what I said could've been worded much better. And they had great points to make. You're just sitting here making antagonistic replies again.

And your ridiculous fucking assumption has no bearing in reality.

[Quillz]

I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted.

Based on some of Panda's posts in the past, I very much get the "as long as this doesn't impact my community, I don't care" sort of vibe.

This sort of take is exactly why I respect people like Max's post and CAHWYGUY But I really don't much care what you have to say because the vibe I get from you is you're full of fucking shit. The other two posters seem like they have very valid points to make In interested in having a productive conversation. I'm just not vocalizing myself and the way that I should be. You just seem like you disagree with what I have to say entirely and are going along with the façade of you being in the middle of the of the road.

I do care about peoples communities, and I do understand that these types of facilities could negatively impact them, and I support whatever measures can be taken to lessen those impacts.

Then don't quote my posts and respond. If you truly don't care.

And oftentimes not building or expanding freeways is how you prevent negatively impacting them.

[cahwyguy]

I live in Hollywood. If completing the BEVERLYHills Freeway Met tearing out 300 feet of right away all along Sunset Boulevard so it could tie in to the original proposed alignment. I would completely support it. I don't see what's happening now with all this gentrification really being much different from how changing the community from the way it used to be.

I'm only on here bitching as much as I am because my community is being impacted by all these lane reductions removals of slip lanes no right turn on red bike boxes and bike lanes that are hardly ever being used and now Hollywood Boulevard is being proposed for a road diet.

I'd just like to address this a little. I can see the various sides here. I live over near the Northridge Mall, where Wilbur was put on a road diet quite a few years ago, adding bike lanes -- and from what I saw in the HLA interface, there are similar plans for Nordhoff. We've also seen bike lanes on Reseda, and reductions in street parking. We're also getting an increased number of low-income housing projects.

I'm also familiar with the Hollywood issues. If you look at the blog side of my site, you'll see I attend a lot of theatre. Going to the Holywood Fringe Festival https://www.hollywoodfringe.org/ pre-pandemic, I would curse the lack of parking and how difficult it is to get around that area (especially when there was something going on and Hollywood Blvd was closed). I'm also a subscriber at the Pantages (we have tickets tonight for "Chicago"; expect a revew sometime tomorrow, possibly after we add a new car to the fold so the old car can go to my daughter). When we go out to the Pantages -- or the Dolby -- we see how poor Hollywood Blvd is for pedestrians.

THere's a key different between these areas: Density and transit.

With respect to the bike lanes on Wilbur, they are little used. But they are used, and traffic, over time, has gotten used to the lane restrictions. We do have our idiots who treat the bike lanes as a driving lane and zoom through. My wife hates the road diet; I try to see all sides and can live with it. Even thought it would decrease travel time for me, I don't think we should build the valley's unbuilt freeways: Route 64 roughtly across Chase, and Route 14 roughly down Reseda. Yes, they would improve the 405. But I think they would change the nature of the valley, and I'm not sure I'd want a freeway that close to me. What we need here in the valley is the bus service to increase. There isn't the density of bus lines that would making increased housing with less parking work. Most importantly, there's also no bus service N of Devonshire -- the north valley is very very poorly served by Metro.

Oh, and a PS: If you want more folks to use Metro, make it clean and have the reputation of being safe. Without that, people won't want to ride it.

As for Hollywood itself: I don't have a problem with the plan to put Hollywood Blvd on a road diet. The old adage has always been that the best way to get to Hollywood is to take Franklin, and very few use Hollywood as the street to transit the area. It is a tourist street, and in the tourist areas we need to make it safe for pedestrians, safer folks folks on scooters and bikes, and less congested with less turning. But those changes have to come with changes in the paralleling and cross streets to improve throughput. There needs to be more parking, and more affordable parking structures (we're going to the Pantages tonight. Parking, as my wife cannot yet walk Metro, is $25. As soon as we can get back to Metro, we'll be taking it from North Hollywood. As reference: Parking at the Ahmanson is $9). So the plan needs to be more than just a single street.

Further, addressing the congestion needs to extend all the way down to Santa Monica Blvd. Again: There needs to be plans for more lots and structures to serve those neighborhoods, at affordable parking prices.

Should they build the BH Freeway. No. I think we would lose far too much in terms of the impact for the community. What we need to do is make transit more successful and more useful. That means increasing the density of transit, increasing the frequency of transit, and increasing the perceived safety of transit. This is true for both the city and the valley.

We see Metro is very inclined to do the road diets and focus on active improvements. Yet when it comes to realistic transit improvements, they are shinkflation. They reduce frequency and density in many areas, and they don't attack the perception of safety, because that costs real, ongoing funds.

This is obstensiby a ROADS forum, and I've been going on about transit. But the overall TRANSPORTATION picture needs to be viewed from all angles. I think with respect to headlines and proposals (which is what started this discussion), it is important to view and understand the issues from all angles: roads, transit, parking. It is important to see and appreciate the impacts on all stakeholders: commuters, residents, local businesses, pedestrians, bike riders. With that, you can come to an understanding of perhaps why particular decisions are being made. You don't have to agree with them. But with the understanding, you can at least better craft arguments to support your position instead of becoming Johnny One-Note (who gets that reference?) -- which alas, quite a few on this forum have become.

Remember that the first step on changing minds is actually listening to the other side, understanding their positions and why they take them, and seeing perhaps the bigger picture and all the components involved. In the speak I use at work: You need to take an Enterprise architecture view, not just look at a single system.

[Quillz]

And while my posts probably don't reflect it, I'm more like cahwyguy in that I'm kind of middle of the road (no pun intended). I don't see the value in being all-in or all-out when it comes to things like road diets, mass transit, etc. Like most things in life, it's trial-and-error. Sometimes you have to try things to see what works, and what doesn't.

And there are examples of things being tried and not working. Remember the bike and walking lanes on the Bay Bridge? Well, after four years or so, the bikers and walkers never came, and now it's likely those will be turned back over to vehicle traffic. Remember the people that wanted to get rid of the Marina Freeway? Yeah, that fizzled out pretty fast.

I agree with the other poster who talked about changes being made in San Francisco. And how the voters wanted it, so it's on them. I agree with that. You let communities make decisions, and then they have to deal with the consequences. If it ends up not working out, it's up to them to change it to something that does. California also has a pretty robust recall system, and it can always be used. Got a local politician trying to force a road diet against community opposition? Recall them. Even the mere threat or attempt can be enough to dissuade them.

So I should point out that I don't actually disagree with Panda on a lot of points. What I disagree with is what seems to be the automatic rejection of anything that is something other than "widen this." You have to let things play out. I don't have access to all the data, I don't do studies. Just because I may not like it or understand it doesn't mean there aren't reasons behind it. Like where I am, it seems Ventura Boulevard is undergoing one of sorts. But they're also adding parking lots and bike lanes where there weren't any previously. And I can tell you from experience if this cuts down on the amount of slow drivers looking for a spot and/or keeps them from cutting across traffic to get a space, I'm all for it.

[Quillz]

and I'm not sure I'd want a freeway that close to me.

And this is the kind of thing I've said for a long time. I feel a lot of pro-freeway people are most likely in communities that would not be impacted by freeways. Not having to deal with eminent domain, widening, and the issues that can come from it. Sure, some might very well be, and there are advantages to having freeways. But there are always trade-offs, always.

[Plutonic Panda]

cahwyguy, I'll respond more in depth to what you said because you made a ton of good points but I'm on the red line right now heading to work. Just walked Hollywood from sycamore to the highland station. That area definitely needs more pedestrian space but that can be done without removing lanes of traffic.

You are also completely right about safety on metro needing to be emphasized more. I think that is about their number one issue at the moment other than needing to focus on maintenance and reliability. Instead they'd rather spend a couple billion on a glorified van nuys streetcar.

Regarding this middle of the road thing I don't know how more middle of the road I can get as I support all modes and think there is an extremely lot we can do besides removing lanes of traffic and road diets. In some cases they are appropriate. Others not so much. Sunset between Gower and La Brea only flows better than Hollywood because it hasn't been gentrified yet and that's about to change. Hollywood basically can become a free flowing road compared to Franklin during bowl events. Selma is halfway gentrified and becomes a traffic locked nightmare quite often. Yucca already has through traffic banned except bikes and peds.

There is no reason to just screw up traffic as bad as possible to "encourage" people to take cars. Build the tens of billions of proposed metro rail lines and then let's talk about reducing car dependency. Until then we need to keep our lanes of traffic especially on Hollywood and Fountain.

I have much more to say though and will later.

[Plutonic Panda]

Another day another major street like Olive Ave. have a lane reduction proposed: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/changes-to-olive-avenue-at-center-of-controversy-over-metro-bus-route-plans/

[Quillz]

Another day of me saying "I'll believe it when it happens." Proposals are commonplace, doesn't mean it will happen. See the Marina Freeway proposal.

And you said you are middle of the road and support all modes so I assume you will give this the fair due diligence? There will be public comment and viewpoints from both sides. Best to let things play out and see what happens. Proposals and reality are very different things.

[mrsman]

There's a lot to be said about the poor state of public transporation in LA area.  It needs to be safer.  Buses need better frequency and fewer stops.  Also, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.

Metrolink needs to be more frequent.  This should be the "bones" of a good transit system.

The LA rail system is growing in the right areas, it's just taking too long.  And because of that, it is not the right time to wage a war on cars by removing parking and driving lanes for bike lanes.

Bike routes are better for the more minor streets.  Away from traffic.

[pderocco]

Also, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.

When did that start? I used to live up there 7 years ago, and LA buses went all the way out to Ocean Ave.

[cahwyguy]

Also, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.

Nope. LA Metro busses go to places like Santa Monica and Culver City without transfer. Look at the route map. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ukpc5uysiuv3zn5kwsr4c/24-0791_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=o2o57lct2nsyysfeeceyi7hap&dl=0 . Cities with their own municipal lines provide better coverages in their cities, but Metro services them as well (a good example would be something like the 4, or it used to be the 4, along Santa Monica Blvd). And, those other cities lines run in Los Angeles proper.

LA is building subway lines slow because they are very very expensive and require lots of engineering.

[Plutonic Panda]

I live in Hollywood. If completing the BEVERLYHills Freeway Met tearing out 300 feet of right away all along Sunset Boulevard so it could tie in to the original proposed alignment. I would completely support it. I don't see what's happening now with all this gentrification really being much different from how changing the community from the way it used to be.

I'm only on here bitching as much as I am because my community is being impacted by all these lane reductions removals of slip lanes no right turn on red bike boxes and bike lanes that are hardly ever being used and now Hollywood Boulevard is being proposed for a road diet.

I'd just like to address this a little. I can see the various sides here. I live over near the Northridge Mall, where Wilbur was put on a road diet quite a few years ago, adding bike lanes -- and from what I saw in the HLA interface, there are similar plans for Nordhoff. We've also seen bike lanes on Reseda, and reductions in street parking. We're also getting an increased number of low-income housing projects.

I'm also familiar with the Hollywood issues. If you look at the blog side of my site, you'll see I attend a lot of theatre. Going to the Holywood Fringe Festival https://www.hollywoodfringe.org/ pre-pandemic, I would curse the lack of parking and how difficult it is to get around that area (especially when there was something going on and Hollywood Blvd was closed). I'm also a subscriber at the Pantages (we have tickets tonight for "Chicago"; expect a revew sometime tomorrow, possibly after we add a new car to the fold so the old car can go to my daughter). When we go out to the Pantages -- or the Dolby -- we see how poor Hollywood Blvd is for pedestrians.

THere's a key different between these areas: Density and transit.

With respect to the bike lanes on Wilbur, they are little used. But they are used, and traffic, over time, has gotten used to the lane restrictions. We do have our idiots who treat the bike lanes as a driving lane and zoom through. My wife hates the road diet; I try to see all sides and can live with it. Even thought it would decrease travel time for me, I don't think we should build the valley's unbuilt freeways: Route 64 roughtly across Chase, and Route 14 roughly down Reseda. Yes, they would improve the 405. But I think they would change the nature of the valley, and I'm not sure I'd want a freeway that close to me. What we need here in the valley is the bus service to increase. There isn't the density of bus lines that would making increased housing with less parking work. Most importantly, there's also no bus service N of Devonshire -- the north valley is very very poorly served by Metro.

Oh, and a PS: If you want more folks to use Metro, make it clean and have the reputation of being safe. Without that, people won't want to ride it.

As for Hollywood itself: I don't have a problem with the plan to put Hollywood Blvd on a road diet. The old adage has always been that the best way to get to Hollywood is to take Franklin, and very few use Hollywood as the street to transit the area. It is a tourist street, and in the tourist areas we need to make it safe for pedestrians, safer folks folks on scooters and bikes, and less congested with less turning. But those changes have to come with changes in the paralleling and cross streets to improve throughput. There needs to be more parking, and more affordable parking structures (we're going to the Pantages tonight. Parking, as my wife cannot yet walk Metro, is $25. As soon as we can get back to Metro, we'll be taking it from North Hollywood. As reference: Parking at the Ahmanson is $9). So the plan needs to be more than just a single street.

Further, addressing the congestion needs to extend all the way down to Santa Monica Blvd. Again: There needs to be plans for more lots and structures to serve those neighborhoods, at affordable parking prices.

Should they build the BH Freeway. No. I think we would lose far too much in terms of the impact for the community. What we need to do is make transit more successful and more useful. That means increasing the density of transit, increasing the frequency of transit, and increasing the perceived safety of transit. This is true for both the city and the valley.

We see Metro is very inclined to do the road diets and focus on active improvements. Yet when it comes to realistic transit improvements, they are shinkflation. They reduce frequency and density in many areas, and they don't attack the perception of safety, because that costs real, ongoing funds.

This is obstensiby a ROADS forum, and I've been going on about transit. But the overall TRANSPORTATION picture needs to be viewed from all angles. I think with respect to headlines and proposals (which is what started this discussion), it is important to view and understand the issues from all angles: roads, transit, parking. It is important to see and appreciate the impacts on all stakeholders: commuters, residents, local businesses, pedestrians, bike riders. With that, you can come to an understanding of perhaps why particular decisions are being made. You don't have to agree with them. But with the understanding, you can at least better craft arguments to support your position instead of becoming Johnny One-Note (who gets that reference?) -- which alas, quite a few on this forum have become.

Remember that the first step on changing minds is actually listening to the other side, understanding their positions and why they take them, and seeing perhaps the bigger picture and all the components involved. In the speak I use at work: You need to take an Enterprise architecture view, not just look at a single system.

By the way to add to this, I absolutely think the Beverly Hills Freeway should be built but as a tolled tunnel. But even as a way to get around on the west side, I would gladly settle for an elevated freeway.


Is that ideal Absolutely not. I'd love to have the peace and quiet of living in the country, but smack dab in the middle of Hollywood. But hey, I guess that K Line northern extension will be coming in the 2040s. WeHo and Metro Claim may have plans to expedite that. We'll see.

Ideally, they would add about 4 to 5 subway lines around the west side. But LA is such a huge city other parts of the city deserve investments as well. And I've gotten into this argument with many transit enthusiast who absolutely despise the gold line along the foothills.

Me personally I'd love to see that train go all the way to big bear one day.

As far as taking Hollywood Boulevard goes or accessing who the walk of fame, I suppose if you're local, you may take Franklin or Sunset and find somewhere to park, But I've never heard of a tourist doing something like that unless the road closures need to bypass.

[Plutonic Panda]

Also, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.

Nope. LA Metro busses go to places like Santa Monica and Culver City without transfer. Look at the route map. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ukpc5uysiuv3zn5kwsr4c/24-0791_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=o2o57lct2nsyysfeeceyi7hap&dl=0 . Cities with their own municipal lines provide better coverages in their cities, but Metro services them as well (a good example would be something like the 4, or it used to be the 4, along Santa Monica Blvd). And, those other cities lines run in Los Angeles proper.

LA is building subway lines slow because they are very very expensive and require lots of engineering.

It's also important to note that Santa Monica big blue bus goes out of the city and also picks up and drops off people as well. I use their bus system a lot and often times the operators won't even request you to pay your fares. They're much more respectful and helpful than LA Metro operators. Same with DASH. But I don't use DASH as much because sometimes I get confused with where their lines go.

In LA I use the Transit app and it's useful for the most part but sometimes it gets DASH wrong. And then Metro has these weird routes for the two and four buses were some of them will continue on west and others will terminate at UCLA or make a left turn on Sepulveda and then loop back around to downtown.

Personally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.

[Quillz]

Personally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.

Might have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson. But lobbying is a powerful force. There was a pretty strong mass transit attitude during the first half of the 20th century, but in many ways freeways and cars put an end to that. Thus the attempts to make better bus lines, Metro lines, etc. is in some ways an attempt to return to what was once was.

[Max Rockatansky]

Fair question, why are old school street car and interurban lines getting a free pass from people nowadays?  Most of those lines became rapidly unprofitable once the car really became something accessible to the average consumer.  Blaming car companies for marketing a then superior product isn't exactly the conspiracy many want to make it out to be. 

[mrsman]

Also, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.

Nope. LA Metro busses go to places like Santa Monica and Culver City without transfer. Look at the route map. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ukpc5uysiuv3zn5kwsr4c/24-0791_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=o2o57lct2nsyysfeeceyi7hap&dl=0 . Cities with their own municipal lines provide better coverages in their cities, but Metro services them as well (a good example would be something like the 4, or it used to be the 4, along Santa Monica Blvd). And, those other cities lines run in Los Angeles proper.

LA is building subway lines slow because they are very very expensive and require lots of engineering.

It's also important to note that Santa Monica big blue bus goes out of the city and also picks up and drops off people as well. I use their bus system a lot and often times the operators won't even request you to pay your fares. They're much more respectful and helpful than LA Metro operators. Same with DASH. But I don't use DASH as much because sometimes I get confused with where their lines go.

In LA I use the Transit app and it's useful for the most part but sometimes it gets DASH wrong. And then Metro has these weird routes for the two and four buses were some of them will continue on west and others will terminate at UCLA or make a left turn on Sepulveda and then loop back around to downtown.

Personally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.

That is true. 

2-Sunset used to go from Downtown to the Ocean.  It now ends in Westwood.
4-Santa Monica does go btwn Downtown LA and Santa Monica, but as PP mentioned about half the trips end at Westwood Blvd.
20 -Wilshire At one time, this bus also went btwn Downtwon LA and Santa Monica, but for the most part that only happens in the evening.
720 - Wilshire Rapid, like 4, about half the buses go beyond Westwood Blvd, but most do not.  This bus will likely be put out of commission when the D line subway to the VA hospital is completed.  And there will still need to be a bus connection to make the last 2 miles to the ocean.
33- Venice most buses make it between Downtown and Venice, with about half continuing to Santa Monica.

The E train does go between Santa Monica and Downtown LA.

But that's it.

The following are the east-west local buses that emanate from Downtown LA that do not go all the way to the Ocean:

2- Sunset, 10-Temple/Melrose, 14-Beverly, 16-W 3rd, 20-Wilshire, 28-Olympic, 30-Pico, 35-Washington, 37-Adams, 38-Jefferson.

Let's say I'm at Pan Pacific Park at Beverly, half-way between La Brea and Fairfax.  I'm close to 14, but kind of far from a N/S bus line.  If I wanted to get to the ocean, I would need to take at least three buses (or walk to 3rd or Melrose and take two, since those bus lines at least connect with 4 in West Hollywood).  This does not seem convenient.

It would seem to me that if there was no Santa Monica of Culver bus systems that some of these buses would continue along Montana, Ocean Park, Olympic, Pico, Washington, Culver Blvd, National, or Jefferson towards the Ocean directly.  A lot more convenient.

Ideally, the entire westside between Downtown and the Ocean would be a bus grid along main streets with all e-w buses stretching from Downtown to the Ocean, and all n-s buses stretching from Sunset (or Hollywood) to at least the C line.  Every location between Downtown, Santa Monica, 110/105, and LAX would be reachable with just one transfer.  This is not the way the LA system is set up at the moment.

[Plutonic Panda]

Personally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.

Might have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson. But lobbying is a powerful force. There was a pretty strong mass transit attitude during the first half of the 20th century, but in many ways freeways and cars put an end to that. Thus the attempts to make better bus lines, Metro lines, etc. is in some ways an attempt to return to what was once was.

It also seems like that system went downhill because the usage went down as well from the way I understand it. It's more than just the car industries trying to buy it out so people can't use it.

but I am familiar with the red line system. I didn't know about the road width.