Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
7 Reasons to Love L.A.
This lot could serve as a subway station. Photo by LA Wad via the LAist Featured Photos pool on Flickr
Metro has intimated that they'll be voting on a preliminary line for their proposed Wilshire extension later next year, and hopes to connect their "current terminus in Koreatown to the Westside," explains MetroRider LA. But where the stops will be are still very much in flux; "one of the stations along the line is still kept as optional: Wilshire Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard."
Why not put a stop there? Area residents who call historic neighborhoods like Park Mile, Windsor Square, and Windsor Village home are opposing the proposed station, fearing a subway station would mar the original vision of their community. The HPOZ protection also limits development, which means future additions to the area capitalizing on the station's presence will be slim to none. And already the area is a bit barren in terms of retail and other transit rider-friendly amenities.
However, as the extensive and detailed MetroRider LA piece points out, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for this possible stop. There is a significant corridor of apartments and condos nearby that may house riders with needs that trump the wishes of the "mansion dwellers" in the more affluent segments of the area. There are also offices and schools that can be served here. And in a time of land shortage in so much of our urban space, there are some lots already in the area that could well serve as stations.
So, next stop: Wilshire and Crenshaw?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This seems like a bad idea. unless the metro plans on eventually extending the line farther west, I don't see the point. This stop is close enough to wilshire western to walk and it is too far away from highland or la brea where there might be reason to go west of koreatown. And if the residents don't want it
The RICH neighbors don't want it. That is a very high density area and there's always a lot of people at the Metro Rapid bus stop. Unfortunately, the wealthy Hancock Park residents have a larger megaphone than the people who rent south of Wilshire.
It's an important stop because it connects to the Crenshaw buses, and not so close to western if one has to arrive somewhere in a timely manner.
I would imagine the Hancock park people's classist fear of Crenshaw district people fuels their opposition.
I've lived on Wilshire and June my whole life. Right near John Burroughs Middle School, right in Hancock Park. I WANT/NEED the subway to go through Wilshire and I would also ride it frequently. TO THE SEA!
Well, it took MetroRiderLA until the THIRD-TO-LAST paragraph of his 45-paragraph treatise.
But, in that short paragraph, MetroRiderLA does begrudgingly acknowledge the significant TRANSIT PLANNING reason for NOT putting a subway station in the low-density vicinity of Wilshire Boulevard at Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine.
It's one of several reasons that many LAist readers, like "skip," above, recognizes in his comment #1.
The reason is that there ALREADY is a station JUST four long blocks away -- just about a half-mile. That station, at Wilshire and Western, already serves the higher-density communities that the writer cites in the census figures provided. Those communities are a COUPLE OF BLOCKS from the existing station. It makes no transit or economic sense to build a second station two blocks in the other direction. Copy and paste the following into your browser and wait patiently to see a Census map (that you then can pan left and right to see the Census density near Wilshire to the east and west):
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=Pan&-errMsg=&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=140&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090&-tm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=thm_def%7Cdw=0.019418188006236174%7Cdh=0.011954647295593129%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-118.32365923847637%7Ccy=34.06084260654236%7Czl=2%7Cpz=2%7Cbo=%7Cbl=%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=86000US90010%7Cds=DEC_2000_SF1_U%7Csb=50%7Ctud=false%7Cdb=140%7Cmn=4233%7Cmx=73517%7Ccc=1%7Ccm=1%7Ccn=5%7Ccb=%7Cum=Persons/Sq%20Mile%7Cpr=0%7Cth=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090%7Csf=N%7Csg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=86000US90010&-_pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=E&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identify
Another reason it is a BAD idea to add this second station so close to Western relates to TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME. While starting and stopping the Purple Line subway trains three times for the high density WILSHIRE CENTER intersections of Vermont, Normandie, and Western makes sense -- despite slowing the travel time -- it makes no sense to further slow the travel time with an additional stop in a low-density area just four long blocks west of Western.
Instead, a non-stop trip under the low-density Park Mile, direct to the Miracle Mile CENTER stations at LaBrea and at Fairfax, can help make up for the lost time of stopping often within real Centers. If the travel time of the Purple Line is not attractive to riders further west (say in Westwood and beyond), ridership WILL suffer.
Furthermore, if scarce transit dollars ($150-200 Million?) are wasted on building an unneeded station near Crenshaw, those transit dollars will NOT be available to extend the subway further west sooner.
Maximizing ridership of public transit (the Wilshire Subway in particular), and building that public transit most cost-effectively, should be every transit advocate's goal. Not social engineering a community.
MetroRiderLA's lengthy piece on his blog seems to relate more to sociology than to either transit planning or city planning.
The careful zoning in the area around Wilshire and Crenshaw was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council, after a half-decade of study, in the late 1970s. Yes, the existing community of residents supported the Park Mile Specific Plan then . . . and supports it now. The Plan is GOOD planning for this unique and historic part of the City of Los Angeles. The City's reasons for adopting the Plan are set forth in the beginning pages:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/PARKMILE.PDF
The Plan's map depicts the low density of the area and the Plan's "CR(PkM) Zone" restrictions on height, uses, etc.:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/spmaps/Detail/ParkMile.pdf
In the initial Metro Red Line planning stages in the late 1970s, the transit experts hired by the SCRTD never included a Crenshaw-area station on the Wilshire line. It made no transit sense. There never was any community input in that transit planner decision . . . because a station there was not an issue because it made no sense. It only became a community issue in late 1979 . . . when the "Crenshaw Station" was ADDED POLITICALLY by the SCRTD Board of Directors in September of 1979, WITHOUT transit expert support or public notice or public participation.
Today -- 2009 and 2010 -- the transit experts have an opportunity to review their expert predecessors' work and to study afresh the current conditions. These transit experts' recommendations about adding subway stops should be based on providing the most and the best subway service, not how the transit experts want the City to look. It is the City's zoning experts -- the Planning Department and the City Council with citizen support -- who already have said what the low density Park Mile community should look like. Let's now leave the transit planning to the transit planners.
While MetroRiderLA is unhappy with the development along Wilshire next to these existing low-density residences ("It’s really sad to go on about the troubles plaguing this stretch of Wilshire"), the people who live and work in and near this stretch of Wilshire are NOT sad. THEY do not speak of a plague of troubles. (Some potential high-density developers -- the kind that planned in the early 1970s to tear down all the homes between Sixth and Eighth, between Wilton and Highland, to create a "mini Century City" [true story] -- probably ARE sad, of course.)
In sum, the Purple Line subway will run further, faster, and probably sooner if a wasteful station near Crenshaw is not built.
as per mapquest,
the distance between Crenahaw and Western is 9 blocks.
Thanks, treeVerb.
It is indeed 9 blocks (two major intersections) between Wilshire/Western and Wilshire Crenshaw.
That's longer than the distance between Wilshire/Western and Wilshire/Normandie (7 blocks), Wilshire/Normandie and Wilshire/Vermont (7 blocks) and the same distance as between Hollywood/Vine and Hollywood/Highland (9 blocks)--which, obviously the transit planners thought were fitting distances. So the distance/travel time thing doesn't really wash here.
Also, instead of just using 1970s info, why can't we plan for the City's future instead of its past?
What I also don't understand is how the NIMBY folks conceptualize what having a subway station will do to their neighborhood or way of life. The riders aren't going to wander around their yards or get off at the stop just because the stop is there. They'll get on/off if they live or work there, otherwise they'll just silent chug along underground between the starting and end points of their route. And it's not just "poor" people use the subway--it's students, people who prefer to not use their car, people who don't own cars, people wishing to go to bars and restaurants and events and not drink and drive. Can we expand our minds a bit and make our city more navigable?
Lindsay William-Ross:
The "neighborhood" issue has NOTHING at all to do with the people who USE the transit.
The "neighborhood" issue has to do with the people (developers) who properly will use the existence of a subway stop to argue for zone changes to (properly, if there is a subway stop) increase density. Increased density means demolition of low-density structures and increased congestion. That's fine for "Centers," but it's inappropriate for a small part of the City that City decision-makers concluded should be maintained as a low-density alternative to much of the rest of central Los Angeles.
(P.S.: The distance to the existing Wilshire/Western Station from Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine IS about a half mile . . . four "long" blocks. But the distance to the existing station from the existing moderately-dense area, halfway between Crenshaw and Western, is about a quarter mile. Subway stations for long-haul lines -- like the Purple Line to the Westside -- generally should not be spaced as close as only a half-mile apart.)
You're welcome Lindsay W.R.
A historical note to remember: Beverly Hills was *instrumental* in killing the first go at a subway to the sea. Now they are *clamoring* to make sure they get a prime stop due to tourist and commerce potential.
One of the crucial aspects of a Crenshaw stop is that it's a *connector* (something the MTA is horrible at implementing). If the old upper crust would use their noggins for a moment - where do people wait for the train? Oh yeah, *underground*.
Thus, a Crenshaw stop would actually serve to move many transit-taking working class folk *out of sight*. Thus, even by their own myopic reasoning, you'd think they'd be leading the charge for this stop.
and P.S.
it easy enough for the neighborhood to clamor for a *low density clause* for this stop, due to the special circumstances of the neighborhood - as opposed to scrapping the stop altogether.
ie: not necessary to throw out the developers envisoned baby with the transit bathwater.
I agree with this. Plus, there are already ugly office buildings right on Wilshire. If they put it there (or a block south, on Crenshaw), what difference does it make? They won't be bulldozing anyone's house. THEN, I say expand it to LaBrea, Fairfax, La Cienega, etc.
First of all, it is great to see this discussion happening. Secondly, I think this discussion is based on some potentially baseless facts:
1) Who says everyone who lives north of Wilshire within a 2 mile radius is against the stop? If you compare these neighborhoods to what they were 30 years ago you wouldn’t recognize them one bit. Property values have sky rocketed (don’t forget that at one point these neighborhoods were left for dead as residents moved to the westside and suburbs). Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be a few people who don’t want change–who can’t see out of a worldview crafted 30 years ago ( ”rapidtransitadvocate”), but things have changed, and so has everyone else who lives around these few outliers.
Has anyone asked the RESIDENTS of these communities whether or not they support a subway portal? Or are we all just going off of past experiences?
Sidenote, the ‘Save Windsor Village’ signs ARE NOT in opposition to the metro stop. That is a bad bit of reporting on the part of this blog.
Here’s why a stop can work:
HPOZ’s have been created in many of the communities surrounding Wilshire. While the HPOZ is almost always misunderstood, its key element is this: It PROTECTS the neighborhood character as a whole. These houses will never be torn down. They can still be renovated extensively, but the portions seen from the street and the front yards, are what the HPOZ is all about. A subway stop cannot reverse these existing HPOZs.
It it is thus impossible for a mini Century City to be built on top of these historic homes. They are protected. Moreover, the HPOZ was supported by a super majority of the residents of these neighborhoods. Why? Because these residents want 2 things: 1) To live in a neighborhood that protects is own history and character 2) to be able to live in an URBAN setting that retains it’s own character while still acknowledging that they are smack dab in the middle of 3 million people–not live in a bubble.
‘RapidTransitAdvocate’ says: “While MetroRider LA is unhappy with the development along Wilshire next to these existing low-density residences (”It’s really sad to go on about the troubles plaguing this stretch of Wilshire”), the people who live and work in and near this stretch of Wilshire are NOT sad. THEY do not speak of a plague of troubles. ”
Where is he or she coming up with this? Have they polled residents of the surrounding neighborhoods? My guess is no.
What I don’t think RapidTransitAdvocate will ever acknowledge is that the Park Mile Plan has killed Wilshire Blvd. Anyone who drives down Wilshire instinctively knows this. The buildings are all empty. Wilshire goes from bustiling, to dead, back to bustling. For-lease signs abound. There are empty lots in many instances.
Was the current state of Wilshire Blvd what planners envisioned? An economically dead stretch on the most important street in Los Angeles? Blocks and blocks of nothing? This might have been the mindset in the 1970s– prevent development at all costs– but this is 2009. Things have changed. There are other answers.
Whether or not ‘RapidTransitAdvocate’ likes it, the Park Mile Plan will collapse at some point. Economics dictates it. The question is, how can we adapt the park mile plan to the times? Mixed used development, on a scale smaller than places like century city, is the answer. Limit the size of buildings, support mixes of residential and commercial, build the subway stop, and, most importantly, RESTRICT parking. This is the recipe for success for WIlshire Blvd. People who live, work, and play–all without the need of a car–will flock to this stretch of Wilshire, but only if they have the ability to leave–and the Crenshaw stop is this option. Those who live north and south of Wilshire would be able to walk down to the drug store, or restaurant, and walk home. What a concept- to live in the middle of a city and not have to use your car to get everywhere.
Here is my prediction: the Crenshaw stop doesn’t get built. There currently is just not quite enough of a demand for it to happen, and Metro is fast tracking this thing which means they aren’t going to want to deal with all of it’s complexities. Then, in about 25 years, when the metro has been running succesfully for a few years and people are starting to get out of their cars, those who live around the stop–from rich to poor–will be outraged that they have been cut out of from the city that they live in the middle of. They will demand that a stop be added because they want to be able to walk down to Crenshaw and Wilshire and take the metro the beach, or downtown to the Staples Center…and then it will be built.
This has happened in many cities before (infill stations). It’s just too bad we won’t be able to get it right the first time. Unless I am wrong, which I sincerely hope I am.
"North of Wilshire" makes a point that there are people who want to “get out of their cars” and walk up or down (or east or west) to Crenshaw to take the Metro various places. Well, there just cannot, economically, be a subway stop at everybody’s corner. That’s why the buses (which do stop frequently) also stop at the subway stations. The northbound Crenshaw Rapid Bus, for instance, now turns east on Wilshire and goes directly to the existing Wilshire/Western Metro Rail station — an expense of TIME of about two minutes and a savings of taxpayers’ DOLLARS of about $150-200 Million (the cost of building an extra station two minutes away at Crenshaw).
North of Wilshire’s point about the people who prefer to “live, work, and play – all without the need of a car” is an excellent point. There are, and will be, lots of high-density accommodations available for those good people around the stations at Normandie, Western, LaBrea, Fairfax, and elsewhere. All places in the world (and our City) do not have to be the same.
And, concerning Park Mile real estate development: When the Park Mile Specific Plan (which is worth reading, at the link cited previously) was debated and adopted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were about 27 vacant, developable parcels in the Park Mile. Today there are only 5 remaining, including the parcel Metro has been holding off the market at Crenshaw for all this time (wisely, of course, from Metro’s point of view). The 22 parcels that now have new buildings were privately developed (by for-profit entities) in compliance with the Park Mile zoning.
Let me invite those of you who feel strongly about whether or not to include Crenshaw in a future Westside Subway, or about any other aspect of that project, to make your views count. How? Come to our website (www.metro.net/westside) and click on "Contact Us." You can also leave us your contact information so we can let you know about future community meetings where this and other aspects of planning for the subway will be discussed. Or, you can find us on Facebook at Metro Westside Subway Extension.
Jody Litvak
Metro Westside Subway Extension Team
Good to see you on here, Jody. I think Metro has done a tremendous job in communicating the timeline, steps, and nature of this historic project.
My primary point is not to hash out the Park Mile Plan. I think the results speak for themselves. In comparison to the rest of Wilshire Blvd, the Park Mile stretch is a wasteland.
‘Rapid Transit Advocate” makes the point that, “There are, and will be, lots of high-density accommodations available for those good people around the stations at Normandie, Western, LaBrea, Fairfax, and elsewhere. All places in the world (and our City) do not have to be the same.”
We aren’t trying to make it the same, and no one wants to ruin any of the neighborhoods. If anything, the Crenshaw stop presents a great opportunity to show that urban neighborhoods and corridors can retain their charm, quality, and unique nature while still being linked to the rest of the city. It's not like the neighborhoods around the Crenshaw stop are out in the San Fernando Valley somewhere. This is the core of the city--just about halfway between Downtown and the Beach...it's a pretty central location to be left out of an urban transportation system.
The bus is not that option. Angelenos are a stubborn bunch and to get them out of their cars the alternate option needs to be almost if not just as fast as driving. Waiting for the bus, taking it down Wilshire, getting off, going underground, waiting for the train….only a dedicated few will do that. Metro is not proposing a stop on every corner. This is, in fact, one of a very few that are in question, which makes it unique, but certainly not superfluous.
Metro is studying this option because they see that it has potential for success and because it can fit in with the master plan. It will not be a blockbuster stop, but a building block for the future. A building block for a revitalized Park Mile, a building block for the line that could someday go down Crenshaw to LAX, a building block for the system. The federal funding guidelines will play a large part in whether or not this station gets built, but there needs to be some acknowledgement that this is a station being built more so for the future than for now. That’s a hard thing to do.
This will take a lot of guts on the part of Metro, but my key point is that they should not accept the premise that there is not support in the surrounding neighborhoods. There is HUGE support, but people are busy and this is a project that is way to abstract to grasp. Neighborhood boards are not a good barometer to measure support. They are run by a vocal minority who have more time on their hands than the rest of us to push their own worldviews.
There has been no study to determine the TRUE level of support this stop would have. To keep thinking in the 1970s mindset is flat wrong. Everyone I talk to in the neighborhood thinks it is a no-brainer–that’s why they voted for Measure R!
North of Wilshire: The reason that "Metro is studying this option" is NOT because Metro sees "that it has potential for success and because it can fit in with the master plan."
The adopted master plan (Wilshire Community Plan and Park Mile Specific Plan) emphatically make this location NOT A CENTER.
The reason Metro is studying this option is because (1) the idea of a station at Crenshaw and Wilshire was added politically in September of 1979, and (2) some people, like you, say they "want" the station. Perfectly good reasons for studying again. I want a subway station near everywhere I am or go. But that many stations will not make very "rapid' transit.
As to an extension of the Crenshaw-Prairie Line from LAX, north of the Expo Line, I believe that most transit advocates today believe it will be preferable to have such a route NOT be on Crenshaw north of Venice Boulevard.
The preferences seem to be either to go northwest from Crenshaw on San Vicente and then up LaBrea to the long-planned Purple Line station at Wilshire and LaBrea (where there also is potential for further northward extension on LaBrea to Hollywood) or to go even further west on San Vicente, direct to the Purple Line station proposed for Wilshire and San Vicente (perhaps en route to Cedars-Sinai and West Hollywood someday).
No, the subway shouldn't stop at every corner, but the distance between the Vermont/Santa Monica station and the Vermont/Sunset station on the Red Line is 1/2 mile. The distance between Wilshire/Western and Wilshire/Crenshaw is similar, so it's not like a Purple Line stop at Crenshaw would be setting some new precedent. The next stop would probably be La Brea, which is 1.5 miles from Crenshaw.
There's no commercial corridor at Wilshire/Crenshaw (just a hideous office building), but as a Windsor Square resident, I can attest to the fact that the MTA has a huge bus ridership using that intersection as a hub already. I'm not sure it pointing that out makes my argument "political." Crenshaw just seems like a logical place for a Purple Line stop as the subway continues westward to the ocean.
I have faith that the MTA would incorporate design elements into a Wilshire/Crenshaw station that would both reflect and enrich the neighborhood, as they have done at their existing stations. I'll be happy to support it... and I live a few blocks away - north of Wilshire.
Metro Rider LA was so enthused over the excellent commentary from so many readers that he stayed up late and posted a new, separate "Addendum" on the subject of his essay "The Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw Station" (the subject of all the LAist comments above). See:
http://metroriderla.com/2009/08/19/addendum-to-the-case-for-a-wilshire-crenshaw-station/
In the tradition of using up bytes, not trees, here's this reader's response to Metro Rider LA:
Metro Rider LA may have even more time on his hands than Rapid Transit Advocate!
Regardless (and fortunately), the census data conclusions (and hypotheses) propounded by Metro Rider LA are the subject of the technical study now being undertaken by the transit experts of Metro and its consultants.
I trust that those experts will remember what similar experts knew thirty years ago: the purpose of the subway is to serve, effectively, large numbers of people. Adding an unneeded Wilshire Boulevard station at Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine does NOT do this for a number of reasons:
-- Ridership:
As noted by Matt, in Comment #23 to the first posting, quoting Metro staff, a station at this location would have the "lowest projected ridership of any station in their computer modeling.” Matt observes that “it is easy to see why when compared to the other stations when considering density, future development, and so forth."
The number of people using a station is related to the trip GENERATION and ATTRACTION at that location. The transit experts will do "ORIGIN and DESTINATION" studies of the areas surrounding proposed stations. Generally, a transit rider in the a.m. peak period “originates” at a residence, and a “destination” is a place of work or play to which the rider travels.
What is important for a limited-access system like a subway is NOT the “distance between stations.” What is important is the “number of potential riders” that will access the subway at any given station. Stops (stations) are only warranted when there will be LOTS of people getting on and off. In some cities around our country, there might be several miles between stations. In Los Angeles, the Wilshire Subway stations are supposed to be constructed where there are the CENTERS of ridership -- the centers of population, activity, and growth near Wilshire.
Contrary to Metro Rider LA's assertion, in his Addendum posting, that the area in question is a "Center" ("Wilshire/Crenshaw is a ‘center’ station, as the strip of office buildings within walking distance of the station means it is a destination for workers just as much as it is for Park Mile-area residents heading to jobs elsewhere"), it is NOT a Center. See "Planning" reasons below.
The destinations in the area near Wilshire and Crenshaw really are few, compared to most of Los Angeles (especially the existing and planned Centers at Western to the east and LaBrea and Fairfax to the west). On the Wilshire Boulevard parcels east and west of Crenshaw Boulevard, commercial building parcels (basically office, with no retail) only extend 200 feet, or so, north and south of Wilshire between Wilton and Highland. Most of the rest of the area between Wilton and Highland, even going as far north as Melrose and as far south as Pico, is relatively low-density residential. Ipso facto, because of the low density over such a large area, most of these origins (residences) are relatively DISTANT from the Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine part of Wilshire.
Metro Rider LA and the US Census reports are correct, however, that there are increasingly dense residential areas starting a couple of blocks EAST of Crenshaw (generally east of Wilton). Those areas are, of course, pretty much within the magic "quarter-mile radius" of the EXISTING station at Western. To the extent that the majority of the existing and planned origins are closer to the existing Western station, it makes no ridership sense to build a second nearby (but slightly further away) station for those same residents.
-- Planning:
The City of Los Angeles does lots of planning. To what extent the elected leaders follow the plans after they or their predecessors adopt the plans is a subject of debate.
BUT . . . the planning for Los Angeles never has been unclear about this part of town. The planning never has suggested, and does not now suggest, that there is a Regional Center (or even a Commercial Center) on the stretch of Wilshire between Western and LaBrea Avenues. Metro Rider LA's assertion about his hoped-for additional station at Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine ("Wilshire/Crenshaw is a ‘center’ station") is inconsistent with both the existing and planned development of the area.
"Concept Los Angeles" was the circa-1972 City Planning document that recognized the City's pattern of development and set forth the long-range plans for future development, based around rapid transit corridors and stations. That adopted plan formalized the concepts of the "Wilshire Center," “Miracle Mile Center," etc. (It also led to the Wilshire Community Plan that led to the Park Mile Specific Plan.)
But planning is not, and should not be, static. The "Concept" was updated and replaced in the early 2000s by "The Citywide General Plan Framework," or the "Framework Element" of our General Plan. The Framework also recognizes what are Centers, and what are not. The area in question is NOT a Center (and is not planned to be one). For TEXT on the Framework's relevant land use, see:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03210.htm
For the Framework's MAP depicting this area as "not a Center," see:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/F31MtoMp.pdf
The Wilshire Community Plan -- which includes the area in question as well as the REAL Centers to the east and west -- also has not been static. It was updated most recently in 2001. The Plan (and therefore the City Planners and the City Council) continues to affirm the same approach as in the Framework: The area in question is not to be a Center. A look at the Wilshire Community Plan map will make this quite clear:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/central/PDF/wilplanmap.pdf
The text of the Wilshire Community Plan is explicit about which are to remain the centers of regional commercial activity, including along the Purple Line route:
“Regional Commercial: Four major areas designated in the Plan as Regional Commercial include: Wilshire Center Regional Commercial Center; the Miracle Mile Regional Commercial Center; the Beverly Center-Cedars Sinai Regional Commercial Center; and the Koreatown Regional Commercial Center” (the latter being the area “generally bounded by Eighth Street on the north, Twelfth Street on the south, Western Avenue on the west, and continu[ing] east towards Vermont Avenue.” (Pages III-5 and III-6 of the Wilshire Community Plan.)
So, the intersections of Wilshire and Bronson-Irving-Crenshaw-Lorraine are not now . . . nor are they planned to be . . . any part of a Center. In this vicinity (all the way east to Wilton Place) increased density is NOT allowed beyond the clear limits set by the Specific Plan. It is only in the area EAST OF WILTON PLACE (Wilton being the western boundary of the Wilshire Center) that increases in density and types of uses are encouraged.
As redundantly noted, those denser residential areas are equally close to (or closer to) the existing Western Station.
It would take SO MUCH MONEY to add an extra station for the relatively few potential riders coming FROM the OTHER nearby residences (the residences not east of Crenshaw, but, rather, northwest and southwest of Crenshaw).
It would take SO MUCH MONEY to add an extra station for the relatively few potential riders going TO the few nearby office buildings along Wilshire.
It makes no planning sense to build a second station in an area that is not and will not be a Center and that is so close to the existing station at Western.
-- Transit Dollars:
In a perfect world, there would be no limit to what our public transit agency could build for us. Metro could build subway stations everywhere -- even if only a few people within a quarter-mile walk would be users of each station. But it's not a perfect world, as we all know.
The cost of ANY extra station is the cost of building (or not building) any OTHER Westside Extension station further west. It also is the cost of tunneling and track laying for perhaps the distance from Fairfax to San Vicente (or LaBrea to Fairfax . . . or probably any two-mile stretch of subway). ADDING a "Crenshaw Station" TAKES AWAY transit dollars for use elsewhere on the Purple Line (or elsewhere in the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor, for that matter).
It makes no fiscal sense to use our scare transit dollars for adding another station near Crenshaw instead of using that money for building additional needed transit facilities elsewhere.
-- Travel Time:
Metro Rider LA may have used his stopwatch when riding the Purple Line for the half-mile trip from the Normandie Station (a subway stop between Vermont and Western that some transit advocates say should not have been built) to Western. Metro Rider LA’s trip time . . . including the train’s slow acceleration and its slow deceleration . . . may well have been just one minute (1 minute). But what about the DWELL TIME? Trains have to stop, open their doors, allow passenger loading and unloading, close the doors, and then start up again. That does take time. As Henry properly observed in Comment #18 in the first posting, lengthy travel time on the Gold Line has negatively impacted ridership there.
The transit experts will let us know the costs (versus benefits) of any proposal to ADD deceleration time, dwell time, and acceleration time.
But . . . adding this (unnecessary) station WILL INCREASE travel time, and if trips are slowed for most riders by building a costly extra station that serves relatively few riders, what's the point of adding that extra station?
I still do not see the point. I only see the harm. The harm is in squandering scarce transit dollars than can be used FAR BETTER elsewhere . . . whether in the Wilshire Corridor, the Crenshaw Corridor, or any other part of transit-needy Los Angeles County.
But MY not seeing the point is not the point! It's what Metro and its independent transit EXPERTS see that counts! The experts may (or may not) agree with my stated four main reasons why adding a subway stop at Crenshaw is unwise:
-- Ridership
-- Planning
-- Transit Dollars
-- Travel Time
By all means, “we the people” should express our views. (They are being expressed at great length in the case of me and Metro Rider LA and some others!) By all means, let’s all let Metro know how we feel!
But, please, let's not be disappointed if the experts -- who must recommend allocation of the scarce transit dollars to serve the most people as quickly as possible -- do NOT opt to ADD an extra station near Crenshaw on Wilshire.
If the experts agree that the adopted plans for development say that our city’s SMART GROWTH should be in the ADOPTED CENTERS, let's not be sad (MRLA's word). Let's be GLAD that RAPID transit finally is being extended to the Miracle Mile and closer to the REAL Westside. Actually getting to Westwood would only be a "subway mostly to the sea," but it would be progress. The furthest possible westward extension of the Purple Line will be a real accomplishment for Los Angeles -- and it’s for that which we all should work (and/or cheer).
Finis (we all no doubt hope).