|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 24, 2009 16:40:22 GMT -8
As someone who used to live right off of Wilshire/Crenshaw (but wouldn't be served by a future station), I am going to advocate for a stop at this location. I did some walking around the area recently to check out the area south of Wilshire and west of Crenshaw (used to live north of Wilshrie) and I found that it was a pretty medium density area. Almost all the properties were multi-family dwellings and there were several apartment buildings and 4-plexes not just duplexes as far west as Lucerne and as far south as Francis. There are also commercial properties on Wilshire (most are about 4-6 stories) and apartment buildings line Crenshaw down to Olympic. These areas are far out of walking distance to Wilshire/Western (except for near the intersection itself) and could use a station nearby. There is also an elementary school, a pre-school and a church about a block or two away each. Three larger apartment buildings have recently been built along Wilshire just to the east of the intersection. Though this area is relatively quiet compared to the rest of the line its not like its just large lots and expensive mansions like in Hancock Park proper between Highland, Melrose, Rossmore, and Wilshire (though north of Wilshire in Windsor Sqaure is similar in scope until about Bronson after which the density appears out of nowhere). Don't forget that south of La Brea and NW, SW and SE of Fairfax have similar residential characteristics though admittedly these two stations have other draws like apartment density north of Wilshire, the Miracle Mile commercial area, and the Museums and taller office buildings at Fairfax.
While it may seem duplicitous to have 4 stations within a mile and a half remember that there will be no stations for the subsequent mile and half. One other advantage is that the two large parking lots at the intersection itself can be developed and are commercially zoned (to 10 stories I think) so we can add a few more jobs there (even if the HOAs will fight it). Also keep in mind that just because the local HOA associations oppose development in the area (and by extension the Purple Line) and think that its an "unwarranted assault on their neighborhood" (Wilshire Park HOA) doesn't mean that the local population will not ride it if it connects to their jobs in DTLA, K-town, Century City or Westwood and there will still be bus transfers from the 210 from both directions even if the Crenshaw Line runs to Wilshire/La Brea. The ridership wont be astronomical but there really should be a station between Western and LaBrea and this is the best location for it (on the SW corner of the intersection).
As I was writing this I also realized something. Metro could save money by opening up a station box and putting the TBM in here since they'd have to open up Wilshire a couple of blocks to the east anyway. The remaining 1/2 mile could be cut and cover (its about 6 blocks to the edge of the Wilshire/Western box which, correct me if I am wrong Jerard ends at St. Andrews). Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 25, 2009 13:30:31 GMT -8
As someone who used to live right off of Wilshire/Crenshaw (but wouldn't be served by a future station), I am going to advocate for a stop at this location. I did some walking around the area recently to check out the area south of Wilshire and west of Crenshaw (used to live north of Wilshrie) and I found that it was a pretty medium density area. Almost all the properties were multi-family dwellings and there were several apartment buildings and 4-plexes not just duplexes as far west as Lucerne and as far south as Francis. There are also commercial properties on Wilshire (most are about 4-6 stories) and apartment buildings line Crenshaw down to Olympic. These areas are far out of walking distance to Wilshire/Western (except for near the intersection itself) and could use a station nearby. There is also an elementary school, a pre-school and a church about a block or two away each. Three larger apartment buildings have recently been built along Wilshire just to the east of the intersection. Though this area is relatively quiet compared to the rest of the line its not like its just large lots and expensive mansions like in Hancock Park proper between Highland, Melrose, Rossmore, and Wilshire (though north of Wilshire in Windsor Sqaure is similar in scope until about Bronson after which the density appears out of nowhere). Don't forget that south of La Brea and NW, SW and SE of Fairfax have similar residential characteristics though admittedly these two stations have other draws like apartment density north of Wilshire, the Miracle Mile commercial area, and the Museums and taller office buildings at Fairfax. While it may seem duplicitous to have 4 stations within a mile and a half remember that there will be no stations for the subsequent mile and half. One other advantage is that the two large parking lots at the intersection itself can be developed and are commercially zoned (to 10 stories I think) so we can add a few more jobs there (even if the HOAs will fight it). Also keep in mind that just because the local HOA associations oppose development in the area (and by extension the Purple Line) and think that its an "unwarranted assault on their neighborhood" (Wilshire Park HOA) doesn't mean that the local population will not ride it if it connects to their jobs in DTLA, K-town, Century City or Westwood and there will still be bus transfers from the 210 from both directions even if the Crenshaw Line runs to Wilshire/La Brea. The ridership wont be astronomical but there really should be a station between Western and LaBrea and this is the best location for it (on the SW corner of the intersection). As I was writing this I also realized something. Metro could save money by opening up a station box and putting the TBM in here since they'd have to open up Wilshire a couple of blocks to the east anyway. The remaining 1/2 mile could be cut and cover (its about 6 blocks to the edge of the Wilshire/Western box which, correct me if I am wrong Jerard ends at St. Andrews). Just my two cents. I am still not sold on this. Given the extra cost, the neighborhood opposition and the overall slow down of the line for everybody else (and reduced ridership), I don't think this station would have enough ridership to offset those issues/problems. It probably makes more sense to have a City West station than one here. We'll see if the EIR proves me wrong, but I'd rather not see a station here as of now. |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 25, 2009 16:49:26 GMT -8
How could having a station here reduce ridership? It could only add to overall ridership by people using a Crenshaw station. It can't slow down the line because it was always supposed to be there. All of the travel time estimations in the AA assume a stop at Crenshaw. It only recently became optional. Now obviously not having a stop there would speed the line up but one minute shaved off is probably not going to add you a whole lot of riders. If the 3rd/Beverly Center spur survived the AA process then I would agree with you but its going in a straight line anyway. I also wouldn't necessarily say its neighborhood opposition, that's just who showed up at the meetings. Look at Expo, the HOA there is full of nutcase NIMBYs too but its still gonna get built. If it turns out that they try and kill the station, fine, but its not worth eliminating just to gain a minute of travel time.
I agree about what you said about City West but there is no way to put one in without spending exorbitant amounts of money since we have dual concrete-cast tunnels. It's not like its cut and cover a few feet below the street where you can just open up the street put platforms on the side and cover it up again especially because the tracks are in separate tubes so side platform is out of the question. Crenshaw would cost as much as any other station on the extension and probably less so because of the TBM thing I mentioned earlier and because the lot there is already empty and no buildings need to be taken for portals or staging. If you were going to trade not having a stop here for another stop on the Purple Line, then put it at Federal since thats in the future and can actually be negotiated plus I don't know why they cut it out of the AA. The area around there is dense with both apartment buildings and jobs (I know Bundy is pretty close by but it serves the apartments North of Wilshire better and connects with San Vicente in Brentwood much better. North of Wilshire on Bundy is single family and this stop would also serve the VA where a surprising number of people get off the 720 every day)
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2009 22:23:03 GMT -8
How could having a station here reduce ridership? It could only add to overall ridership by people using a Crenshaw station. It can't slow down the line because it was always supposed to be there. All of the travel time estimations in the AA assume a stop at Crenshaw. It only recently became optional. Now obviously not having a stop there would speed the line up but one minute shaved off is probably not going to add you a whole lot of riders. If the 3rd/Beverly Center spur survived the AA process then I would agree with you but its going in a straight line anyway. I also wouldn't necessarily say its neighborhood opposition, that's just who showed up at the meetings. Look at Expo, the HOA there is full of nutcase NIMBYs too but its still gonna get built. If it turns out that they try and kill the station, fine, but its not worth eliminating just to gain a minute of travel time. I agree about what you said about City West but there is no way to put one in without spending exorbitant amounts of money since we have dual concrete-cast tunnels. It's not like its cut and cover a few feet below the street where you can just open up the street put platforms on the side and cover it up again especially because the tracks are in separate tubes so side platform is out of the question. Crenshaw would cost as much as any other station on the extension and probably less so because of the TBM thing I mentioned earlier and because the lot there is already empty and no buildings need to be taken for portals or staging. If you were going to trade not having a stop here for another stop on the Purple Line, then put it at Federal since thats in the future and can actually be negotiated plus I don't know why they cut it out of the AA. The area around there is dense with both apartment buildings and jobs (I know Bundy is pretty close by but it serves the apartments North of Wilshire better and connects with San Vicente in Brentwood much better. North of Wilshire on Bundy is single family and this stop would also serve the VA where a surprising number of people get off the 720 every day) All I was saying was that slowing down the line costs riders. I know everyone says a couple minutes here and there doesn't matter, but it can make the difference between a trip being made faster by car vs. the subway. This one station may not have that much of an effect, but all I was saying is that there is a factor there. I am all for having stations in certain areas as long as there really needs to be one there because there is a cost both in terms of money and overall line effectiveness. In regards to the community opposition, I think it is much more than a few people showing up at meetings. This station sparked major opposition back in the 80's and there seems to be a lot there now as well. Any transit oriented development would likely be heavily opposed. I just don't want an unnecessary headache for the entire Purple Line if it isn't necessary. On the Federal station (I live in the neighborhood although for full disclosure I am closer to Bundy), I think it makes much more sense if there is some sort of park and ride structure there with the VA land. That will be difficult to pull off, but that particular part of the VA (southeast corner of Wilshire/Federal) doesn't have the same restrictions as the rest of the VA unless I am mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2009 22:37:20 GMT -8
I seem to be in the minority as the only "no" vote. As I recall it was pretty much that way on issue of diverting off Wilshire to the Grove and then down 3rd Street. I still think I was right on that one and on this one to a lesser extent. I enjoy the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 27, 2009 5:06:58 GMT -8
I seem to be in the minority as the only "no" vote. As I recall it was pretty much that way on issue of diverting off Wilshire to the Grove and then down 3rd Street. I still think I was right on that one and on this one to a lesser extent. I enjoy the debate. I agree with you about diverting to Third but not on this issue. Antonio summed up my points. I, too, once lived at the end of the block from the proposed Wilshire/Crenshaw station. The big parking lot between Crenshaw and Lorraine was an after-hours playground for my friends and me. It would be well-served with a subway station. Development, on the other hand, would not go very far. The neighborhood very much wants to keep the dead zone on Wilshire the way it is. It also wouldn't function very well as an urban park & ride lot. Oh, and the kicker: that parking lot is already Metro property. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 27, 2009 6:29:26 GMT -8
The ONLY reason, IMO, to build a Wilshire/Crenshaw station is as a transfer point between Crenshaw buses/rail to the Red Line. And to me, that's not a good enough reason. Buses can always be routed to Western or La Brea, if need be.
The density is simply not there. And it never will be. Even proponents will admit that the area surrounding Wilshire @ Crenshaw is medium density, at best, and that density is essentially capped by the folks north of Wilshire, (Windsor Square and Hancock Park, for example).
In short, the station area will never see the kind of density - residential, commercial, or otherwise - to justify a station costing several hundred million dollars and reducing the overall speed of the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 27, 2009 6:58:48 GMT -8
Furthermore, the Crenshaw LRT team is looking at Wilshire/La Brea as an ultimate northern end to that project, which would be in synch with a Wilshire/LAX link.
I don't have an answer as to whether Crenshaw would be a good link/station to the Purple Line, but Metro is ready one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 27, 2009 9:05:36 GMT -8
I'm gonna have to agree. Wilshire/Crenshaw station will not help the Purple Line destinations. The Crenshaw LRT should either go north (after Leimart Park) to La Brea or Western due to the density possibilities.
If anything that the Purple Line needs without adiditonal tunneling would be a station at Wilshire/Witmer. I know you want to keep the line fast and efficient, but we are missing a whole segment of City West residents. To have them walk or take DASH to 7th street station, just to go back west/north on the subway is inefficient. The downtown stations average a 1/3 to 1/2 mile distance, and additing the Wilshire/Witmer station would be roughly the same distance do wonders for the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2009 9:25:04 GMT -8
After careful thought the past three days and taking a ride down Wilshire, no money will be saved by this 1/2 mile cut-cover because of the impacts. Those impacts can be reduced by 4 blocks by starting between St. Andrews and Wilton and placing the TBM there because a connection would have to be made between the current station box and the new bored tunnel and that cut out makes a perfect second crossover for Wilshire/Western so more usable space is squeezed out of the work.
Compared to the Regional Connector (I have an inkling this idea stemed from after a discussion a while back) which a proposed Central Library/5th Street station is only 1 block away from the end of the current Blue Line tunnel it makes more sense there because these are all things that would have to be done anyways.
Dedicated Bus-Only lanes between La Brea and Western with queue jumpers at Highland and Rossmore would work well here because remaining cross traffic is light and stops like Rimpau where there are office buildings could be linked to the rail line very quickly because now the trains could go up to 70 mph to travel the 2 mile distance and the dedicated bus lanes can wisk these potential passengers to those destinations quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2009 18:56:11 GMT -8
I wouldn't be totally opposed to a station there, but it's probably not the most useful way to spend money given that the Crenshaw light rail line will more than likely go up Venice and connect to the Purple line at La Brea. There would have to be a better reason than the few apartment buildings there. They'll already have stations east and west of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 17, 2010 18:37:49 GMT -8
I've change my mind. We need to plan these lines for the long term, not just for the way that things are at this moment. This photograph of the 7 line construction in Queens reminded me of that.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 17, 2010 19:51:19 GMT -8
^ I wonder what the cost of that rail line in Queens was. No utility relocation. No digging. And in all likelihood, no pesky union wages to pay. (I say 'pesky' tongue-in-cheek.)
There are plenty of places in L.A. with the density to support a subway station. Let's spend our scarce resources on those places, rather than on an intersection whose prospects for dense urbanism are almost zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 27, 2010 1:37:16 GMT -8
I'm voting "no" as well.
If we had a surplus of money, matching federal support, plus high-density and support from the neighborhood, I'd say absolutely.
But we have none of those things (save for possibly the federal support).
Years down the line, when the system is improved, when the people demand it, and when (maybe) there's some more money available, a station could be added.
Until then, let's save $350 million and put to towards getting to Century City (or getting the Crenshaw line to Wilshire).
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 27, 2010 10:21:44 GMT -8
I'm voting "no" as well. If we had a surplus of money, matching federal support, plus high-density and support from the neighborhood, I'd say absolutely. But we have none of those things (save for possibly the federal support). Years down the line, when the system is improved, when the people demand it, and when (maybe) there's some more money available, a station could be added. Until then, let's save $350 million and put to towards getting to Century City (or getting the Crenshaw line to Wilshire). I'm in the no on Crenshaw camp as well as the cost, slowdown of the line and lack of current development and future development opportunities make this station problematic at best. The main argument I've heard is where will all the Crenshaw bus riders transfer to the Purple Line and the answer is the bus will continue to Western as it does today. Crenshaw is a dead end street at Wilshire so the fact that it is on a busy bus line just doesn't fly. I don't think adding the station at a later date is all that feasible though. This isn't an at grade light rail line. It would be extremely expensive to do so. Anyone have any thoughts on Tom LaBonge's proposal to add a Red Line station in the Arts district along the tracks from Union Station to its maintenance yard? The tracks are already there so a platform would have to be added. I suppose it would be our only outdoor heavy rail station. It may be worth it if it can be done cheaply. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 27, 2010 11:48:59 GMT -8
The idea of a Red/Purple extension to the Arts District has been around for years. Especially as the beginning of an Eastside extension of the Purple Line. The tunnel and track are already there: it just needs a station. Even if elevated, a station wouldn't cost too much ($10-20 million tops).
I'm all for it, as long as it is easily accessible to the neighborhood. Like for instance, alongside Santa Fe near 3rd Street would be perfect. Note that, unlike at Crenshaw/Wilshire, this area is ripe for high-density development. A new station in this area could result in a mini construction boom.
LaBonge took advantage of his stand-in role on the Metro Board, to request this study. Good job, Tom!
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 27, 2010 13:05:26 GMT -8
I don't think adding the station at a later date is all that feasible though. This isn't an at grade light rail line. It would be extremely expensive to do so. The difficulty of later adding an infill station depends very much on the provisions left for it during initial construction. An example of infill station planning that worked out very well: the Embarcadero BART station. It was constructed and opened three years after the Transbay Tube and Market Street subway were operational. Late in the BART planning process, the need for a additional station in the lower Market Street area became apparent. The original Market Street construction contracts were subsequently modified to include the Emabarcadero station box. The rest of the station work was done after the Market Street subway was operational. Today, the Embarcadero station is the most heavily used station in the BART system. Anyone have any thoughts on Tom LaBonge's proposal to add a Red Line station in the Arts district along the tracks from Union Station to its maintenance yard? The tracks are already there so a platform would have to be added. I suppose it would be our only outdoor heavy rail station. It may be worth it if it can be done cheaply. My main concern is that it may hinder future Red Line expansion. If we add an Arts District station now and later decide we want to extend the Red Line out toward, say El Monte, we will have a problem. I do not want what could be a very low-performing station to limit our options on a regional-scale. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2010 13:54:11 GMT -8
I understand the opposition to Crenshaw, but in it's favor is that it's one of the few proposed or potential stations where Metro already owns the property, so there is that cost savings. With a station more dense development would be allowed and they could lease the land for much more money than they could if a station were not there. This extra money could be used to help finance the cost of the station.
If a station is not built, we're talking about having a 2 mile gap between stations on LA's major transit line in LA's major transit corridor forever.
As far as the additional red line station in the artists district, I think that will make sense at some point, but in the immediate future it will be very lightly used. Still given relatively minimal construction and operational costs they should at least study it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2010 13:59:29 GMT -8
The difficulty of later adding an infill station depends very much on the provisions left for it during initial construction. An example of infill station planning that worked out very well: the Embarcadero BART station. It was constructed and opened three years after the Transbay Tube and Market Street subway were operational. Late in the BART planning process, the need for a additional station in the lower Market Street area became apparent. The original Market Street construction contracts were subsequently modified to include the Emabarcadero station box. The rest of the station work was done after the Market Street subway was operational. Today, the Embarcadero station is the most heavily used station in the BART system. I can't see anything like that happening in this instance. It wouldn't make much sense to have TBM's constructing tunnels and then dig a station box and entrance for a Crenshaw station and then not build it. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 27, 2010 14:30:51 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that the idea of "heading the Crenshaw line to Wilshire" does not mean Wilshire/Crenshaw, but means Wilshire/La Brea or Wilshire/Western. Most of the Metro studies show the Crenshaw LRT going north to Western or La Brea, where the density justifies a station www.metro.net/projects/crenshaw_corridor/ |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 27, 2010 14:35:23 GMT -8
An Arts district could be a great addition to the Metro system....as long as the develoment zoning is changed to much higher density. This could be one of LA's great neighborhoods, with limited parking/white elephants and more opportunities for dense infill development.
Also, maybe now trains will no longer slow down into Union Station and can do the turn back at the new Arts District station. You know that's the most annoying thing about Metro rail (at the terminus stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 27, 2010 15:42:38 GMT -8
I don't think adding the station at a later date is all that feasible though. This isn't an at grade light rail line. It would be extremely expensive to do so. The difficulty of later adding an infill station depends very much on the provisions left for it during initial construction. An example of infill station planning that worked out very well: the Embarcadero BART station. It was constructed and opened three years after the Transbay Tube and Market Street subway were operational. Late in the BART planning process, the need for a additional station in the lower Market Street area became apparent. The original Market Street construction contracts were subsequently modified to include the Emabarcadero station box. The rest of the station work was done after the Market Street subway was operational. Today, the Embarcadero station is the most heavily used station in the BART system. Anyone have any thoughts on Tom LaBonge's proposal to add a Red Line station in the Arts district along the tracks from Union Station to its maintenance yard? The tracks are already there so a platform would have to be added. I suppose it would be our only outdoor heavy rail station. It may be worth it if it can be done cheaply. My main concern is that it may hinder future Red Line expansion. If we add an Arts District station now and later decide we want to extend the Red Line out toward, say El Monte, we will have a problem. I do not want what could be a very low-performing station to limit our options on a regional-scale. I would definitely be all for constructing some kind of "fail-safe" infill station for the possibility of a future Crenshaw station. As long as we're saving millions of dollars that should (for now) be going towards other projects (Crenshaw to Wilshire at La Brea or Western, Green Line to LAX, or an MIS for the I-405 Line), then I don't see a problem. I think years down the line, once the Purple line is extended and successful, the demand for a Crenshaw station will become substantial and then, perhaps a station may be constructed. As for the extension to the Arts District, I think it's a great idea and most important, sets up for a future HRT line down Whittier Blvd. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, it would be relatively inexpensive to build right now. Justin, please forgive my ignorance, but how would an Arts District station hinder a Red Line extension? If such an extension (let's say, to El Monte) was proposed, couldn't the two lines simply divert (Purple to Whittier, Red to El Monte)? |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 27, 2010 17:16:54 GMT -8
I would need a map to better make my point, but the reason I favor the Eastside LRT to be pursued on the SR60 routing is to allow a second, Eastside HRT to follow a routing directly to Whittier Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2010 23:38:46 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that the idea of "heading the Crenshaw line to Wilshire" does not mean Wilshire/Crenshaw, but means Wilshire/La Brea or Wilshire/Western. Most of the Metro studies show the Crenshaw LRT going north to Western or La Brea, where the density justifies a station www.metro.net/projects/crenshaw_corridor/Of course. If the Crenshaw line were going to connect to the Purple line at Crenshaw we wouldn't have a need for this thread since there would most definitely need to be a station there. |
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 1, 2010 8:11:14 GMT -8
Also, maybe now trains will no longer slow down into Union Station and can do the turn back at the new Arts District station. You know that's the most annoying thing about Metro rail (at the terminus stations. Do Red/Purple line trains still relay at Union Station (as they were the last time I rode in July 1999), or do they just change ends (as they did in the beginning)? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 3, 2010 13:19:45 GMT -8
Update from the Source today on this very topic, as well as information on the upcoming community meeting:
--------
Should the Westside subway have a Crenshaw station?
The team of Metro staffers that are planning the Westside Subway Extension are holding a meeting on March 17 to discuss a significant issue: should the subway have a station at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards?
Stations cost about $200 million to build and there’s been a wide-ranging discussion in the Park Mile section of Wilshire Boulevard about the prospect of having the subway stop there. This is the area surrounded by the communities such as Hancock Park, Windsor Square, Windsor Village, Fremont Place, Wilshire Park and others (click on the above Google map to see a larger aerial view of the neighborhood). Some people in the area want a station, others don’t. Because there hasn’t been consensus — and this is an issue dating back to early subway planning days of the 1980s — the meeting is being held to discuss the issue and to allow Metro staff to gauge how residents now feel about it.
The station is being considered as part of the subway extension draft environmental impact study and Metro staff will issue a recommendation whether or not to build it in that document. The decision, however, will ultimately be up to the Metro Board of Directors.
Here are a few facts and ideas that frame the issue:
*The Crenshaw station would be just one-half mile west of the current Wilshire/Western station. That’s pretty close compared to other stations on the Westside Extension, which are being planned to be about a mile apart. However, if the Crenshaw station is not built, there would be a two-mile gap between the Wilshire/Western station and a station at La Brea. That’s pretty far.
*The area around Crenshaw and Wilshire is mostly residential and fairly low density in terms of population when compared to Koreatown to the east and Wilshire Boulevard west of La Brea. Preliminary projections suggest that the number of people using the station would be low compared to other stations, though on par with some existing and planned stations. That raises the question over whether money spent on a Crenshaw station might better be spent on other aspects of the line.
*One of the concerns in the community is that a new station will bring additional development. That is probably correct, though new development may occur over time anyway. The question is how much. Generally speaking, the current zoning regulations in place do allow for some additional development — as is the case in much of Los Angeles — but not all that much compared to more dense areas to the east and west.
*There is also the matter of the Crenshaw Line light rail project, which will have one terminus at Crenshaw and the Expo Line — about three miles south of Crenshaw and Wilshire. There are no current plans to extend the Crenshaw Line to the north and the Crenshaw Corridor Northern Segment Feasibility Study indicated that it would probably be better to bring that line up to Wilshire west of Crenshaw, possibly at La Brea, Fairfax or San Vicente.
*Another question sure to be batted around: if a station is not built now, will residents regret that in 10 or 20 years? You can’t really go back and add a station to a line already in operation without shutting it down. And that’s hard to imagine happening.
What do you think? Let us know your opinion by emailing us at thesource@metro.net. Or, to make your views an official part of the study, send them to WestsideExtension@metro.net or on the new Westside Subway Extension page on Facebook.
The press release about the March 17 meeting is below.
METRO TO HOLD COMMUNITY MEETING FOR WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION OPTIONAL CRENSHAW STATION
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in collaboration with the City of Los Angeles Planning Department, invites the public to a community meeting on March 17 to discuss the optional Wilshire/Crenshaw station under evaluation for the Westside Subway Extension Project. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/DEIR) currently underway for the Westside Subway Extension identifies Wilshire/Crenshaw as an optional station.
“There is not community consensus in this area as to whether there should be a Wilshire/Crenshaw Station,” said Project Director David Mieger. “We promised the community that we would give them an opportunity to discuss this question. Their input will be one factor in helping us develop our recommendation.” He noted that the study must continue to evaluate a station at Wilshire/Crenshaw.
The staff recommendation about the Wilshire/Crenshaw station will be part of the overall recommendations at the conclusion of the Draft EIS/EIR process. Following a public review period, a “Locally Preferred Alternative” will be presented to the Metro Board of Directors who will make the ultimate decision.
Members of the public are encouraged to attend the upcoming meeting to learn more about the Westside Subway Extension project. Officials from the City of Los Angeles Planning Department will also be on-hand to discuss land use planning guidelines for the area.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
6-8 p.m.
Wilshire United Methodist Church
4350 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
This meeting is served by Metro Line 20, 210, 710 and 720. Free parking is available. Spanish & Korean translation will be provided.
Metro anticipates releasing the Draft EIS/EIR for public comment in summer 2010. The Metro Board of Directors will decide on the recommendations later this year.
Special ADA accommodations are available to the public for Metro-sponsored meetings. All requests for reasonable accommodations must be made at least three working days (72 hours) in advance of the scheduled meeting date. Please telephone the project information line at 213.922.6934. The TDD line is 800-252-9040.
For additional information, visit the Westside Subway Extension project web site at metro.net/westside. Project information can also be found for “Metro Westside Subway Extension” on Facebook. The project information line is 213-922-6934.
-- Steve Hymon
---------
I'm still in the no-build camp on this.
People can either take one of the buses to La Brea or Western, or (and I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet) people at Crenshaw can easily either walk to Western. According to Google, it takes 12 minutes to walk from Crenshaw to Western. Putting two subway stations this close on this particular corridor is nonsensical given the lack of density, the lack of development, and community opposition that surrounds Crenshaw. It's only going to slow down the line and balloon the already huge price tag.
I'd like it to happen, but for now, the money that would be spent needs to go to other projects (Crenshaw, Green, and Gold Lines plus an MIS for the 405 Line, just to name a few).
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 3, 2010 15:35:26 GMT -8
Well, just asking the people in the community is not necessarily the best way to gauge overall support for a station. Of course, a lot of people in the immediate neighborhood are going to say they want a station there.
The question is whether it will really benefit the overall line. It will certainly make the project more expensive and slower since trains could actually reach their designed 70 mph speed between Western and La Brea with no stop at Crenshaw. With a station at Crenshaw, the train will barely get out of Western before it has to stop at Crenshaw since the stations are right on top of each other.
Of course, it is a good thing to bring a station closer to people, but there really have to be enough people to use it to make it worthwhile. This area is not zoned for much development and any development here will face a big fight. Remember this is the area where Perrino's was not allowed to reopen, because the neighborhood zoning plan had a clause for no restaurants.
I wish the MTA had gone and solicited neighborhood input like this when they supposedly weighed the Barrington vs. VA station locations. Comparing two locations is actually far more useful in soliciting community input than just asking do you want a station here or not. BTW, Barrington is far more dense than Crenshaw, yet will never have a station based on current plans and never got any near the attention that Crenshaw is getting.
Seems to me that any savings from not putting a station at Crenshaw should be used to ensure proper station locations and portals are placed at key locations like Century City, Westwood, and West LA.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 3, 2010 16:31:12 GMT -8
Nobody will dispute the following: - Speed will be reduced
up to 2 minutes a little.
- Price tag will be increased by $200 million.
- Transfer point to Crenshaw buses is just as easy to do at La Brea or Western.
- At current local density, boardings at that station would be minimal.
So, the only reason to build this if there is some likelihood, sometime in the foreseeable future (let's say 30 years), for this neighborhood to completely transform from a wealthy anti-density enclave of single-family homes into a dense neighborhood full of transit riders. Call me skeptical, but I just can't see this happening. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 3, 2010 16:54:44 GMT -8
Having said that, I can't ignore the poll results at the top of the page. As of now, it is 11 votes in favor of the station, and 5 votes against.
Anyway, I will be present at the meeting, two weeks from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 3, 2010 17:40:31 GMT -8
Nobody will dispute the following: - Speed will be reduced up to 2 minutes.
- Price tag will be increased by $200 million.
- Transfer point to Crenshaw buses is just as easy to do at La Brea or Western.
- At current local density, boardings at that station would be minimal.
So, the only reason to build this if there is some likelihood, sometime in the foreseeable future (let's say 30 years), for this neighborhood to completely transform from a wealthy anti-density enclave of single-family homes into a dense neighborhood full of transit riders. Call me skeptical, but I just can't see this happening. I dispute all of those.  2 minutes just because of an additional station sounds like too much. If every station added 2 minutes then you would expect that the 14 existing intermediate red line stations would add 28 minutes to the travel time yet the red line manages to travel between NoHo and LAUS in just 30 minutes. As I mentioned earlier Metro already owns the land for the Crenshaw station and could lease to a developer to offset some of the $200 million station cost over the long haul. How can transferring to a bus on a street other than the street that you want be easier than actually transferring at that street? I know what you mean in that for most people it won't be that burdensome, but it's not ideal. The population density isn't especially low on the south side of Wilshire. In fact it's fairly high. The north side is lower than average, but combining the two it's pretty decent. I'd guess 10k per square mile and that could easily increase with a station there. Minimal compared to what? I think that a station here would compare favorably to any of the red line stations on Vermont. |
|
