|
Post by wad on Mar 9, 2010 5:03:58 GMT -8
Anyway, I think Darrell's point was that the Westwood-Century City segment is also long, and is actually more dense than the Hancock Park segment, yet it has no intermediate station. Density alone does not a successful station make. The area around the Wilshire/Normandie station is the densest in Koreatown, yet it's nowhere near as busy as Western or Vermont. This stretch of Westwood has low transit usage in the first place, even despite the 20+ story apartment and condo towers. Plus since you didn't have the neighborhood eager for a station, it's not critical to serve this area with a station.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 9, 2010 7:04:38 GMT -8
I asked Jody Litvak about Barrington vs. the Veterans Administration. The Purple Line Segment 3 is defined in the LRTP as ending in "Westwood"; the best they could do was the V.A. site to at least get west of the 405.
^^^ That's the dumbest reason I have ever heard for putting it in the VA -- a technicality? ? Come on, people. We can do better than that. I entirely concur...and having a terminus there until the West Hollywood segment is completed means that such a terminus might be there for a very looooooong time...like years, decades, or even forever.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 17, 2010 18:12:56 GMT -8
I'm at the Crenshaw/Wilshire meeting. The Metro planners just stated some figures related to a Crenshaw Station. Projected cost for this station in today's dollars is $153 million. Also, although daily boardings for the station could be as high as 4,400, the difference in the ridership without the station is projected as only about 1,200. This is because without this station, some riders would simply board at another station.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 17, 2010 19:02:53 GMT -8
The meeting just let out. It was maybe 60-75% against the station (although in fairness as someone pointed out, the numbers would probably be reversed had the mtg been held in Leimert Park for example). There was a fair amount of NIMBYism in the room, including one woman who could barely speak out of fear of crime and trash and development etc.
My opposition has little to do with local homeowner interests. My opposition is simply that the area, present and future, does not have density to justify the cost. And transfers are actually better on one of the non-dead-end streets, Wilshire or La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 17, 2010 20:30:48 GMT -8
I concur with metrocenter (I usually do with him). Wilshire/La Brea is a major hub for a lot of things, and having both north-south and east-west transit options at that location would be awesome for that region.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 17, 2010 21:08:37 GMT -8
The meeting just let out. It was maybe 60-75% against the station (although in fairness as someone pointed out, the numbers would probably be reversed had the mtg been held in Leimert Park for example). There was a fair amount of NIMBYism in the room, including one woman who could barely speak out of fear of crime and trash and development etc. My opposition has little to do with local homeowner interests. My opposition is simply that the area, present and future, does not have density to justify the cost. And transfers are actually better on one of the non-dead-end streets, Wilshire or La Brea. I agree, I absolutely hate being on the same side of the issue as these NIMBY's. I am moderately against the station solely because I don't really think the $150M + cost and slowdown in the line (even if it is just a minute) is worth the additional 1-2k riders that Metrocenter pointed out. I am a little surprised it was 60-75% against the stop. These meetings do tend to attract older, wealthier homeowners (i.e. Hancock Park) rather than working, apartment dwelling folk (i.e. South of Wilshire), which I think really skews things so I really take this with a grain of salt. Also, you have to take into account people who will use the stop for work or business, which this type of meeting never really takes into account (granted this is much smaller at Crenshaw than some other stops). The question really is whether this $153M can be put to better use along the rest of line whether that be creating additional portals at key stations or locating key stations in better locations like at Century City and Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 18, 2010 8:50:50 GMT -8
I am a little surprised it was 60-75% against the stop. I stated a big range because I didn't really count the respondents. It was most likely closer to 75%, and maybe even that is understating the opposition. This was clearly an anti-station crowd. The pro-station speakers were sprinkled in there somewhere, but as I said I didn't count. The City Planning Department spoke as well. They explained the intense restrictions to any new development specifically at Wilshire/Crenshaw, and more generally in Park Mile. The station site is surrounded on three sides by HPOZs (historical preservation zones), and on the fourth side is under an ICO (interim control ordinance) while awaiting becoming an HPOZ. Development is further restricted by restrictions that cover Park Mile. For instance, not only stores and restaurants are forbidden, but even schools are forbidden. (These NIMBYs are hardcore, they want no changes to "their" neighborhood at all. Preservation is one thing, but this is extreme. Why buy a house in the city if you hate the city so much?) Metro did make one point at this meeting: the anti-station locals aren't going to get off easy by opposing the station. Metro intends to use the station location (which it owns) for staging and access to the subway tunnel during construction. Thus, they are still going to be impacted for several years. Also, once the subway completed, Metro still intends to develop the site. They paid a pretty penny back in the day, so you know they aren't going to put single-family houses on that land.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 18, 2010 10:15:15 GMT -8
I concur with metrocenter (I usually do with him). Wilshire/La Brea is a major hub for a lot of things, and having both north-south and east-west transit options at that location would be awesome for that region. Fairfax/Wilshire would be a better choice than LaBrea/Wilshire, IMO. The original plan for the Red Line had it going up Fairfax instead of Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 18, 2010 19:29:38 GMT -8
^^^ According to online documents, there will be stations at both Wilshire/La Brea and Wilshire/Fairfax.
I like the Wilshire/La Brea station... I think the area can be improved... and a station is a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 31, 2010 0:19:34 GMT -8
Like I said before, while I don't mean to sound like a jerk, 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 simply wasteful, compounded by the fact that the community doesn't want it.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 2, 2010 20:39:46 GMT -8
|
|