|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 4, 2011 19:05:10 GMT -8
At the March 18 Expo board meeting that will get Phase 2 finally rolling, one of the major options to be decided will be whether to build parking for the Expo/Westwood Station as originally planned (the baseline design) or to omit parking for this station and build a park instead. The cost of the two options for Expo is about the same. (The actual park will have to be built by the city, not Expo.) After studying the renderings at the link below for the two options, cast your vote for this poll! Expo Westwood Station parking and no-parking options renderingsYou can also submit your preference to the Expo Authority or Expo board members if you want it to be officially considered. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 4, 2011 19:34:35 GMT -8
NO PARKING!
We need to emphasize the benefits of not attracting more car traffic to the area, plus the cost savings of forgoing parking.
Invest a portion of the savings into better active mode access (bike/ped), local transit (more frequent headways, perhaps an hourly Cheviot Hills circulator), and and kiss-and-ride drop-off area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 4, 2011 20:12:15 GMT -8
Parking lot. Parking lots aren't always bad. In this case, one is needed to serve the Cheviot Hills populace. Cheviot Hills residents are lying when they say they won't use the Expo Line. Without a parking lot, you lose a good chunk of that ridership base.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 4, 2011 20:34:12 GMT -8
The Palms Recreation Center is less than two blocks away from this area. It's a massive park with a large pasture, basketball courts, plenty of parking, and a library. I have never seen it very full, even on weekends.
Considering the proposed park option would not have parking for use of visitors, it becomes an exclusive park for nearby residents - and has the added effect of making the station less useable by people who are not within comfortable walking distance.
It's a no brainer. The greater public good is parking spaces, not a semi-private green area for exclusive use by nearby residents.
I'm disheartened that both Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends 4 Expo groups have not only "taken positions" in favor of this option (they're not elected bodies and hold no votes), but are attempting to coerce people on their mailing list to write letters to the Expo Board of Directors in support of this asinine idea.
The idea of a park instead of parking - especially when several huge parks are close by - is simply, clearly and undeniably selfish.
Actually pursuing this makes these groups look self absorbed, foolish and petty - and will no doubt lessen their influence in the eyes of Metro's board of directors. It's a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Mar 4, 2011 21:06:35 GMT -8
Using the land adjacent to a transit station (that is not the terminus) for parking is insane. A drop off area is fine, as are maybe 10 spots for 15 minute parking.
Using it for a park is not much better.
Mixed use 6 story building please.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 4, 2011 22:00:21 GMT -8
No parking. Los Angeles is full of asphalt. Remember that Streetsblog post of how land dedicated to cars makes us nearly 60% of our land. There is no shortage of parking in LA. With parking, you are just begging for more drivers. Expo/Westwood should be a neighborhood station with a kiss-n-ride, and a bus shelter. People can walk, take the bus, get dropped off/picked up, or ride their bike to take the train. Let's stop building trains for cars, but for people! A parking lot just encourages more drivers, not less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 4, 2011 22:44:14 GMT -8
No parking. Los Angeles is full of asphalt. Remember that Streetsblog post of how land dedicated to cars makes us nearly 60% of our land. There is no shortage of parking in LA. With parking, you are just begging for more drivers. Expo/Westwood should be a neighborhood station with a kiss-n-ride, and a bus shelter. People can walk, take the bus, get dropped off/picked up, or ride their bike to take the train. Let's stop building trains for cars, but for people! A parking lot just encourages more drivers, not less. The reason those drivers are there to begin with is because they're taking the train. Without parking, Cheviot Hills residents will be less likely to take the train. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Mar 4, 2011 23:56:43 GMT -8
I was going to vote parking, until I took a look at the Expo map, and noticed that there will be parking at Sepulveda (about .6 miles away, if I recall correctly) and also at Bundy and Culver City. If drivers are going to drive to the train, they can easily drive .5 extra miles to the next station with parking.
As for access to a park, don't forget that parks are a destination too, and may not only serve nearby residents: if the park is nice enough, people might actually take the train there!
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 4, 2011 23:58:00 GMT -8
The reason those drivers are there to begin with is because they're taking the train. Without parking, Cheviot Hills residents will be less likely to take the train. Cheviot Hills has already caused us a pain in the a**. Heck, I'm glad BBB is eliminating the 13. Their is already low patronage on their existing transit service. National/Palms isn't getting parking, so should they? We can promote people to walk, bike or take a bus to trains, by spending that money on better infrastucture. A parking lot is a waste of valuable taxable space. Now, if there was a charge to use the parking lot (minimum $2 a day), then I would see it differently. But most likely this will be a sunk cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2011 0:26:12 GMT -8
The reason those drivers are there to begin with is because they're taking the train. Without parking, Cheviot Hills residents will be less likely to take the train. Cheviot Hills has already caused us a pain in the a**. Heck, I'm glad BBB is eliminating the 13. Their is already low patronage on their existing transit service. National/Palms isn't getting parking, so should they? We can promote people to walk, bike or take a bus to trains, by spending that money on better infrastucture. A parking lot is a waste of valuable taxable space. Now, if there was a charge to use the parking lot (minimum $2 a day), then I would see it differently. But most likely this will be a sunk cost. But the National/Palms station is in an urban neighborhood. There's a huge difference. It actually doesn't matter to me; I'd be fine with either one. I forgot that Expo/Sepulveda was getting parking. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 5, 2011 17:53:02 GMT -8
It's a no brainer. The greater public good is parking spaces, not a semi-private green area for exclusive use by nearby residents. Don't forget, Alex, it would be a whole 170 parking spaces (FEIR page 2-18) for a station that projects over 5,000 daily boardings (FEIR page 2-48). I'd expect they would fill very early in the morning, and would result in a lot of frustrated drivers only adding traffic to the neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 5, 2011 22:54:46 GMT -8
Using the land adjacent to a transit station (that is not the terminus) for parking is insane... Using it for a park is not much better. Mixed use 6 story building please. Agreed. I would vote for a park rather than a surface parking lot, but I really think Metro should sell the land and let it be developed. [ Actually, now that I've looked at the images again, I see that this space is narrow and long, not much good for a useable park. Perhaps parking is a better use, if Metro charges $5 a day to park. Or again, if Metro or the city sells the land, a private owner can choose to provide parking for a fee, in addition to apartments or offices or retail.My wife and I were recently looking for places within bike or transit distance of Santa Monica city college (she has a job application there), and the options are limited. We need more housing on the Westside, and next to a light rail station would be a great location. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 6, 2011 6:57:52 GMT -8
It's a no brainer. The greater public good is parking spaces, not a semi-private green area for exclusive use by nearby residents. Don't forget, Alex, it would be a whole 170 parking spaces (FEIR page 2-18) for a station that projects over 5,000 daily boardings (FEIR page 2-48). I'd expect they would fill very early in the morning, and would result in a lot of frustrated drivers only adding traffic to the neighborhood. If that's your contention, where would these 170 people park if parking was not available? |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 6, 2011 7:56:31 GMT -8
If that's your contention, where would these 170 people park if parking was not available? Then, 1 - they'll drive, 2 - take a bus (yes, people will resort to buses if needed), 3 - walk, or 4 - ride a bike. Why do you have to assume driving is your only option to stations? It's not about the availability of parking that drives Metro systems, it's the destinations on the line. Using the logic that parking is sorely needed, then why isn't Santa Clarita or the Valley more bustling economic centers with free parking? No. It's places that have better transit and paid parking (LA, Venice, Santa Monica, Hollywood, etc...). And why limited to 170 people? Don't parking spaces turn over during the day? We'll never get off the "road addiction" if we keep dedicating so much asphalt to the car. You know what really drives traffic...parking. If parking (esp. cheap and convenient) isn't readily available, people will make the effort to get to their destination using other resources. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 6, 2011 12:37:58 GMT -8
This is Cheviot Hills. The hills are steep and there are no buses through the residential areas. If you are wearing heels, or a suit and tie it's less likely you're going to hoof it for 8 blocks up and down hills, you will drive to work instead.
Less parking makes the line less useable by those who are just shy of walking distance. Why do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 6, 2011 13:41:18 GMT -8
How much parking will there be at the Sepulveda station? It's only a little over 1/2 mile away, which is a long walk but a short drive.
170 spaces is pretty small. It will help on evenings and weekends (if Metro puts a price on it so it doesn't just turn into a free parking lot with low turn-over), but yeah, not much use for rush-hour commuters, unless they charge a fair market price.
I wonder if there is enough parking demand for a structure to be built; that is, could charge enough for parking to pay for a garage? At $20k to 50k per space you need to be able to charge $10 a day, I believe.
[EDIT: I changed my vote again, to Park, not parking.]
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 8, 2011 2:29:08 GMT -8
Perhaps the demand for parking is sufficiently great to create parking effectively from Overland to Military or beyond, allowing parkers to choose which station they wish to walk to. I agree that the land in question is long and narrow and with a soundwall on one side (that balls could easily pass over), a park next to train tracks would be seldom used. So put parking there ...but make the soundwall more visually acceptable. Gosh it looks awful!
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 8, 2011 10:56:03 GMT -8
Planned uses, Westwood station: - Destination stop: visit the Pico/Westwood area.
- Destination stop: transfer to buses with various final destinations.
- Source stop: transfer from buses.
- Source stop: walk from nearby homes.
Planned uses, Sepulveda station: - Destination stop: visit the Pico/Sepulveda area.
- Destination stop: transfer to buses with various final destinations.
- Source stop: transfer from buses
- Source stop: transfer from cars (park-and-ride).
Metro should not build public parking at Westwood: it will only serve to encourage people to drive to that station. Metro should make it clear that Sepulveda is the station intended for park-and-ride use. Metro does not need to "encourage" neighbors to use the Expo Line by creating parking at Westwood. Metro has a compelling product that tens of thousands are going to use, because of the great benefit it provides. If people in the neighborhood feel the need to drive to a station to avoid getting their suit wrinkled, then they can drive the additional three minutes to the park-and-ride station at Sepulveda. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 8, 2011 16:50:07 GMT -8
Here is my take on the parking issue.
1. The claim that this is a "suburban" station and thus need parking space is boarder line crazy. The station itself maybe next to low density residential area but the area it is intended to serve is definitely not suburban. Westwood station lies on the path of the busiest bus corridor in West LA (Westwood Blvd) with 6 bus lines (BBB 4, BBB 8, BBB 12, BBB 13, BBB S12, CC 3) that run as frequently as 5 minute headway during rush hour. The station is also 1 block south of Pico Blvd, which also has 7 minute headway between BBB 7 and Rapid 7 during rush hour. In another word, this is a bus-heavy transit center NOW. Together, Westwood/Pico is the busiest bus stop on the West side. Basically, vast majority of people using this future Westwood Expo station will have arrived here by bus or on foot - there is no doubt at all that this will be the case.
To put it bluntly... this station is intended to serve people transferring from bus, not the crazy NIMBYs that live here. Parking at this location probably won't entice local residents to use Expo line but will attract people who may otherwise ride a bike or bus to this station (and transfer to Expo).
2. The 170 proposed space is so immaterial to the overall boarding projection, it is likely to be occupied all day, which make them virutally useless.
3. The Sepulveda station is planned with 260 spaces and the Venice/Robertson station is planed with 850 spaces. Those are ideal places on the Expo line to put parking lots. If someone living near Cheviot Hill wants to drive to Expo station, they already have 2 nearby station with lots more parking spaces to choose from. Adding another station with parking here serves no purpose other than induce more traffic on the side streets where people live.
|
|
