TRANSPO LA - I don’t know if Matthew Hetz is a fan of the Allman brothers, but his response, “Bruins, Trojans and Getting Mr. Mirisch Back on Track,” to my response, “My Metro, right or wrong: Metro’s greatest Hetz,” would seem to suggest so. I’ll attempt to follow Mr. Hetz’s threads and address as many of his questions as possible.
Mr. Hetz wonders how an elected official in Beverly Hills can possibly comment on the placement of a subway station which is meant to serve as exotic a location as Westwood (make that “Westwood/UCLA”). The suggestion is that I can’t – perhaps am not qualified to – or shouldn’t – because I should presumably mind my own business and only stick to Beverly Hills issues – comment on anything outside the sphere of our “tony burgh,” as the syndicate writers like to remark (despite that fact that some 55% of our residents are renters and some 5% live under the poverty line).
Now I’d like to think that my interests are broader and more expansive than just Beverly Hills, as much as I love my hometown. But if you absolutely must have a Beverly Hills connection, then look no further than Measure R, which Beverly Hills voters overwhelmingly approved, with one of the highest percentages in the entire County. Far from being an island, Beverly Hills is concerned about our regional transportation needs and our residents have shown they’re willing to put their money where their mouths are.
What’s more, as I’ve pointed out, UCLA is a commuter campus, which makes the need for effective public transportation all the more pressing. And not a few of those commuting students are residents of Beverly Hills.
The irony of Mr. Hetz’s suggestions looms even bigger in the larger debate about the subway and much of what has been written about Beverly Hills. On the one hand, we’re accused of being insular, on the other hand when we discuss issues beyond our borders, it’s not our place to do so. The fact is, we have an interest in getting the regional system right, and when major governmental agencies arrive at wrong decisions and do so in the wrong way it affects all of us.
And yet Mr. Hetz seems so intent on trying to tie my interest to the location of the UCLA station to the location of the Century City station. And, to an extent, he’s right. I have made no secret of the fact that consistency of criteria in decision-making is the important hallmark for the credibility of a massive public agency, especially one which sucks up billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
If Metro is going to use the Yaroslavsky Method (draw a circle around an area and find “the center of the center”) in determining where to place stations, then they should use this method for all stations, and not just selectively.
If Metro is going to take a “ridership über alles” stance, then they should do this for all stations and for all locations, including the VA (more about the VA and Mr. Hetz’s musings later). Yes, Metro needs to explain why a single block is so important in Century City and why the ridership is so important there, but the distance to UCLA is trivial and the ridership at the VA is insignificant. Of course, they can do neither, at least not with any sense of credibility.
Mr. Hetz seems to think that my advocacy for a better station location in Westwood, namely, one that actually can better serve UCLA as well as the Village and high-rises, has something to do with legal posturing for a potential lawsuit in relation to the proposed Constellation station.
He seems to be suggesting that if the Westwood station were placed closer to UCLA, Beverly Hills would be able to make the following argument to the courts: “the Westwood station isn’t centrally located, so neither should the Century City station have to be.”
First of all, my proposal for the Westwood station actually incorporates the Yaroslavsky Method. A station closer to UCLA (I’ve suggested at LeConte and Westwood, but there are other options, as well) would actually be more centrally located within the Westwood region, so that’s not exactly a winning argument in Mr. Hetz’s scenario.
But beyond the legally far-fetched nature of Mr. Hetz’s suggestion, let’s remember that if there are legal proceedings, it will have been Metro that initiated them. Metro will sue the Beverly Hills School District under eminent domain laws, not the other way around. Like one time Beverly Hills resident Greta Garbo, the Beverly Hills School District just wants to be left alone.
So, now to the question of the VA and its suitability as a station location. Writes Hetz: “In this month of remembering our Nation’s Veterans with Veterans Day, I feel it is the least we can do to repay the Men and Women Veterans who served our nation by having a subway station at the VA. Mr. Mirisch?”
Here Mr. Hetz makes it clear that, for him at least, there are criteria beyond simple ridership or pure transit-oriented motives which should determine the location of subway routes and stations. In this case, the goal of repaying our veterans should supersede other criteria.
While I agree with Mr. Hetz that we should honor the service, contributions and sacrifices made by our veterans, I am not so sure that a subway station is necessarily the best way to accomplish that goal. From a transit perspective, a station at Barrington and Wilshire might have made a lot more sense.
Before committing the significant resources involved in a subway, perhaps we should first have done our homework. What are the numbers of veterans involved? Will they, in fact, best be served by a subway as opposed to other options? Would perhaps a special door-to-door shuttle for veterans or a system of taxi vouchers or some other mechanism better serve their needs?
Of course, not all veterans use exclusively the services of the VA hospital. It seems more than likely that large numbers of veterans – not to mention other individuals, who have also served our great country in a variety of ways which deserve our thanks, such as teachers, police, firemen and other people involved in public service – also use the facilities of the UCLA medical center. Should their service and sacrifices not also be honored by a subway station?
On one point, at least, I do agree with Mr. Hetz. I do agree that ridership alone should not be the sole determining factor in planning a subway.
I believe that access is the forgotten twin to ridership in determining public transportation systems, and I believe access to important public institutions should be considered. Under this Weltanschauung, perhaps there is something to be said for a station at the VA, but there is even more to be said for a subway station which provides better access to a major educational institution such as UCLA, including its own medical center, which is busy throughout the year.
And, as mentioned before, times have changed: UCLA does not go into hibernation in the summer, but there are year-round activities.
Very clearly, a station at LeConte and Westwood does a better job of providing such access than a station at Wilshire and Westwood. Mr. Hetz suggests that as the campus is large, and that even with a station at LeConte and Westwood, many would still decide to take shuttle buses within the campus. Some might, that’s true. But at Wilshire and Westwood, basically there’s no choice.
At LeConte and Westwood, I’m convinced that large numbers of people would walk to their destinations on campus rather than wait around for buses. I sure know that if I were going to see SC beat the Bruins at the new, rebuilt Pauley, I’d be happy to walk to and from a LeConte/Westwood station.
Of course, that’s only anecdotal, and Mr. Hetz asks how I can know that ridership would be greater at LeConte/Westwood than Wilshire/Westwood. The answer is that I can’t for one very simple reason: Metro never did advanced ridership studies for a LeConte/Westwood station.
Shouldn’t, at the very least, such ridership studies, along with an examination of the impacts upon Westwood Village and the residential areas of a more centrally-located subway station at least been part of Metro’s due diligence?
I can certainly say, as I have, that the Purple Line should do a better job of serving a major public educational institution like UCLA. To me, that is one of the basic and most elemental functions of a good public transit system.
As to Mr. Hetz’s specific objections to a LeConte/Westwood station, his main point seems to be that there is more traffic at Wilshire/Westwood and that this is the reason the subway station should be there. The irony is that this same reasoning can be used to justify a Santa Monica Blvd./Avenue of the Stars station, as there is currently much more traffic along that arterial than on Constellation, which is all of two blocks long.
Clearly buses can serve southbound traffic on Westwood, for those who want to connect to the Westside Pavilion or the Expo line. For those who need other north-south connections, the VA station will likely prove to be the better option.
And, as mentioned, from a planning perspective, a LeConte/Westwood station does a better job of integrating UCLA into Westwood Village, an important urban goal discussed at the recent cityLAB seminar. The station location at the seam of the campus and Village could play a key role in the upgrading of Westwood Village, which has been sorely in need of help for decades.
Mr. Hetz asks about where park-and-rides would be built at a LeConte/Westwood station. Mr. Hetz seems to be suggesting that park-and-rides should be a part of the transit master plan and should be incorporated into the planning for the Westside Extension. Here, again, we find common ground.
However, many self-appointed transit advocates oppose park-and-rides as a matter of principle, no matter the specifics of the situation. Their reasoning is that once people get into their cars, they’ll simply stay in their cars to their end destination.
This “reasoning” should not apply to all of the LA area. Many people cannot or will not use sporadic – and decreasing – bus service to get to a subway station. But many would use a park-and-ride. I’m convinced that many of our residents who are not within walking distance of a subway station would drive the mile or two to a convenient park-and-ride facility in order to avoid killer traffic on their journey to points downtown and beyond.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, park-and-rides provide better access for the Westside residents to actually use the subway. Park-and-rides turn the subway from a one-way conveyance system, which brings in workers to the Westside and then shuttles them out again, into a two-way transit amenity which the Westside residents can actually use.
There are currently no park-and-rides planned anywhere along the Westside Extension. In fact, for commuters a park-and-ride would make more sense at the VA than at Westwood, but the VA doesn’t want to be bothered, which is yet another reason to question the station location.
Currently, there are no park-and-rides planned at Wilshire and Westwood, so Mr. Hetz’s theoretical objection to the difficulty to build them near LeConte and Westwood is moot, not to mention the observation that it would also be difficult to build park-and-ride facilities near Wilshire and Westwood.
As a side note, the City of Beverly Hills has expressed its willingness to talk to Metro about finding park-and-ride solutions within our City. Guess what? They’re not really all that interested.
Mr. Hetz suggests that Beverly Hills should embrace its past. BH has never left its past and though architecturally we have done a poor job of honoring our history, we are now on track to finally remedy that. We have remained (for the most part) low-rise and human scale.
Yes, we once had a trolley car and we also are supportive of the subway coming through our City. What we are not supportive of are the lack of transparency and the bait-and-switch tactics that Metro used to gain initial community support.
In addition to the understandable reaction against this breakdown of good governmental process, the Community is concerned about the impact Metro’s routing would have on our only high school. The Community is concerned with the way in which Metro has handled all of this, and that Metro seems to be putting the needs of developers first, playing political games and disrespecting both our locally preferred alternative (LPA) along with the concerns of our residents.
In short, it seems to be yet another governmental blow-off and the Community feels it has reason not to fully trust Metro after their continuing assault on local control and their heavy-handed, bureaucratic “we’re from the government; we know best” mentality.
Of course, Beverly Hills has and will continue to defend the interests of our Community, schools and residents. But who’s sticking up for UCLA?
It’s UCLA which is consistently getting pistol-whipped. After the recent Trojan 50-0 humiliation of the Bruins, it’s time for the carnage to stop. The very least we can do is provide the campus, and all of Westwood, with the transit options they deserve.
(John Mirisch is a member of the Beverly Hills City Council. He blogs at huffingtonpost.com and occasionally contributes to CityWatch) –cw
Tags: Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Westwood, UCLA, Measure R, Zev Yaroslavsky, Metro, Metro Rail, Century City, VA, Bruins, Trojans
CityWatch
Vol 9 Issue 99
Pub: Dec 13, 2011