|
|
Post by wad on Aug 18, 2009 3:08:49 GMT -8
From MetroRiderLA:  Metro, understandably, is seeing more and more support for a Wilshire Boulevard subway throughout the line between its current terminus in Koreatown to the Westside — as well as a swell of unexpected support for an extension in West Hollywood. During the last series of scoping meetings, Metro representatives said the board will likely vote on a preliminary line by Fall 2010. This gives the neighborhoods a year to formalize where they want stations and what construction methods should be used to complete the project. One of the stations along the line is still kept as optional: Wilshire Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard. At first appearance, it might seem understandable why this intersection may be poorly suited for a subway station. The first is a sentiment of fierce opposition from the three neighborhoods that the station would serve: Park Mile, Windsor Square and Windsor Village. Second is what is seemingly poor prospects for ridership: a T-intersection where Crenshaw ends, “very low” density, zero retail activity and very limited commercial zoning. Third is zero potential for development of any kind, as the neighborhoods are protected by historic protection overlay zones and specific plans that mandate free parking. They are challenges, but certainly not insurmountable. In the broad view, though, a station at Crenshaw Boulevard will play a vital role when the Purple Line is fully built. Conversely, the absence of a Crenshaw station will be noticeable, frustrating, and will close the window on a chance for the neighborhood to become a part of the subway. The neighborhood can rise up now and force Metro to remove the subway station, but there’s the very real possibility that in a few years, current residents will reverse themselves or the neighborhood profile changes and residents would be more favorable to a subway station. It happened before … namely along everywhere else on Wilshire. I think that a Wilshire/Crenshaw station would be appropriate, it would stimulate a respectable level of ridership, and still be respectful of the historic character of the neighborhood. Read the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 18, 2009 7:38:02 GMT -8
A station at Wilshire/Crenshaw should not be built because the cost does not match the benefit. Each station costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Let that sink in for a minute. You need a *lot* of riders to justify that kind of expense.
To have that kind of ridership, the station must be surrounded by either high-density residential (of transit riders), or high-density destinations, or both. OR, be a transfer station. As the fourth paragraph explains, ridership and destinations are close to zero. And transfers at that T-intersection are awkward at best. Bus transfers can be moved to Western, and a rail transfer could be located at La Brea.
The author argues that future ridership may exist. That's no reason to build a station. Unless the area has a master plan to increase density significantly in the next 10 years, the potential for ridership remains low for decades to come.
So if there is little benefit to the general ridership, and the neighborhood doesn't want it, then why build it? Who benefits from a Crenshaw station? That one big building pictured above?
And finally, who benefits from not building the station? Answer: anyone riding the subway along Wilshire. The train will be much, much faster, and will skip the part of L.A. that wants to be skipped.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 18, 2009 7:54:29 GMT -8
A good measure of the need for a station is pedestrians. How many pedestrians do you see at the corner of Wilshire and Crenshaw?
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Aug 18, 2009 8:56:56 GMT -8
A good measure of the need for a station is pedestrians. How many pedestrians do you see at the corner of Wilshire and Crenshaw? There could be quite a few, if the Crenshaw line goes up that way. This is probably talk for the Crenshaw forum, but I have profound doubts about any alignment up San Vincente into Carthay Square. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 18, 2009 9:28:16 GMT -8
A station at Wilshire/Crenshaw should not be built because the cost does not match the benefit. Each station costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Let that sink in for a minute. You need a *lot* of riders to justify that kind of expense. To have that kind of ridership, the station must be surrounded by either high-density residential (of transit riders), or high-density destinations, or both. OR, be a transfer station. As the fourth paragraph explains, ridership and destinations are close to zero. And transfers at that T-intersection are awkward at best. Bus transfers can be moved to Western, and a rail transfer could be located at La Brea. The author argues that future ridership may exist. That's no reason to build a station. Unless the area has a master plan to increase density significantly in the next 10 years, the potential for ridership remains low for decades to come. So if there is little benefit to the general ridership, and the neighborhood doesn't want it, then why build it? Who benefits from a Crenshaw station? That one big building pictured above? And finally, who benefits from not building the station? Answer: anyone riding the subway along Wilshire. The train will be much, much faster, and will skip the part of L.A. that wants to be skipped. Well said. This station has the lowest projected ridership of any potential subway station. People argue that it will be over 2 miles between the La Brea and Western stops, but so what? The trains can actually get up to full speed if that is the case. The station will be expensive to build and reduce the cost benefit of the whole line and hurt the chances of federal funding. There could be an argument if there could be future development around here, but that doesn't appear possible. Yes a few people will be left out in the cold, but there will still be busses on Wilshire to connect with the nearest stations. If MTA goes ahead and includes this station, there will likely be a big fight over this with nasty publicity for the entire line (just like in the 80s). Is this low ridership station really worth all that? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 18, 2009 9:40:23 GMT -8
A good measure of the need for a station is pedestrians. How many pedestrians do you see at the corner of Wilshire and Crenshaw? There could be quite a few, if the Crenshaw line goes up that way. This is probably talk for the Crenshaw forum, but I have profound doubts about any alignment up San Vincente into Carthay Square. The Crenshaw Line LRT is not going to go up that way. On the latest maps of the Westside Subway extension, the Crenshaw option going up to Crenshaw/Wilshire is labeled "Bus Only". As there is no current station planned for San Vicente / Wilshire, the most likely stations for interesection with the Purple Line and the Crenshaw Line are Wilshire/Fairfax or Wilshire/LaBrea. As Crewnshaw/Wilshire has been labelled "bus-only", and as the Rapid 710 already goes to Wilshire/Western, I doubt that Crewnshaw/Wilshire is being seen as a possible "transfer station". |
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Aug 18, 2009 13:13:46 GMT -8
As there is no current station planned for San Vicente / Wilshire, the most likely stations for interesection with the Purple Line and the Crenshaw Line are Wilshire/Fairfax or Wilshire/LaBrea. I'm sorry - I thought I saw a map that had a possible Crenshaw extention up San Vincente to Fairfax or Wilshire. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 18, 2009 14:43:31 GMT -8
You did. There is no Purple Line station currently planned at San Vicente/Wilshire.
Perhaps there could be a Crenshaw station with a transfer tunnel underground between La Cienega & San Vicente on Wilshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Aug 29, 2009 7:11:04 GMT -8
As a frequent user of both 210/710 I can't help asking if anyone has ever considered the impact to the riders. Specifically, if there is no Wilshire/Crenshaw station, where is the local Crenshaw line supposed to connect to the Subway to the Sea? Or are folk of the belief that the 710 should continue service (to Wilshire/Western) even after the Crenshaw LRT is built?
And even when the Crenshaw LRT is extended up Wilshire and beyond to Hollywood, there would be a huge gap in connectivity for the Crenshaw corridor between Adams and Wilshire, because the Crenshaw Line would veer towards Mid-Town Crossing (San Vicente/Pico) and eventually La Brea or Fairfax in that portion after an Adams/Crenshaw station.
|
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Aug 29, 2009 11:43:26 GMT -8
Well has anyone said the would get rid of the 710? The Crenshaw Line would only follow the 710's route from around Crenshaw/Washington to Crenshaw/Florence. What about the entire rest of the 710 route between Crenshaw/Florence and the South Bay Galleria? If they keep that part of the route intact, why not the route from Crenshaw/Washington to Wilshire/Western?
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 29, 2009 12:38:49 GMT -8
Have you discussed this with Roderick Diaz and the Crenshaw team, Damien? I'm sure there's a very good answer to your question...or there needs to be one?
|
|
