Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT
I don't think Bundy/Centinela is the strongest corridor for veerying 1 mile away and close to the beach. By that case we should take a strong look at Lincoln Blvd which would blow this and even Sepulveda out of the water for ridership and demand.
|
Centinela is 3 miles away from the beach; that's not close at all. "Walking distance" is defined as 0.5-mile/10 minutes.
And we need both this line and a Green Line extension up Lincoln. It's commonplace in other cities to have rail lines spaced 1-2 miles apart, and you don't need Manhattan-level density to justify it. Look at the station density in Outer London, which I think is very sprawl and actually not that dissimilar to LA when you really think about it. It's a bunch of little SFHs tightly crammed together (look at it from satellite and Streetview perspective).
Yes, local politics means that we have to spread out projects across the county. But it's clear that the ridership demand is within a very specific geography of LA (north of the 105, west of the LA River). The La Brea alternative for Crenshaw North projects 16,000 riders per mile, which is insane.
Quote:
I also see how the Metro Board is overspending and over committing to things that they have no funds for (Eastside Phase 2, WSAB, Foothill Gold Line, Electric Buses) and that is a problem that will put in jeopardy delivering such projects why having flexibility to the vertical HRT configuration is important to reign in on costs.
|
I'm not opposed to elevated heavy rail, especially if it sets a precedent and opens the door for more elevated heavy rail configurations in other parts of the county. We actually really do need this to happen, since subway construction costs are outrageous. As I mentioned in a recent post, Vermont becomes 16 car lanes wide at Gage... and I think an elevated structure would actually improve the appearance of the street (and save a few billion dollars as well). North of Gage would be subway, so there's an argument that it's actually not about environmental racism.
But Metro hasn't even entertained the idea of elevated rail south of the Santa Monica Mountains, and it would no doubt face strict opposition from the get-go.
Quote:
One key bit that you haphazardly throw away with the Sepulveda/Slauson location are those strip malls and who OWNS those strip malls. Many of which are starting to shift to more urbanized development master planning. But guess who is a big land owner around Sepulveda/Slauson, it's Westfield. Westfield who is looking at this in Warner Center for the old Promenade shopping mall next to the Orange Line BRT.
|
Westfield currently owns the strip malls with the Sprouts, Office Depot, BevMo!, Citibank, and Trader Joe's?
My point still stands that Howard Hughes Center and Culver Pointe are neither within walking distance, and the pedestrian experience from Slauson is miserable. Nobody who works there is going to want to take the train there, and then hail and Uber/Lyft every time. It's also unlikely that every employer would offer shuttle rides to their offices, and if they did, you'd have to run them very frequently (even more unlikely). Ultimately, they will still decide to drive.
A Jefferson/Centinela station
already has the jobs within
WALKING DISTANCE and the potential for even more.
Quote:
Here's a link to the site that talks about that conversion there. If they are thinking of this here, there is a damn good chance they will do it around Westfield Culver City and neighboring land they own. Countering to some of the arguments you have made around Playa Vista and a Bundy/Centinela alignment. And walking around Playa Vista down Jefferson Blvd is just as miserable a pedestrian experience. Both will need linkage improvements to make them work either via pedestrian/bike and micro transit for both locations to aid in their success.
https://promenade2035.com/project.php
|
I never said Jefferson offered a great pedestrian experience. It's just nowhere near as terrible as having to walk under one or two freeway underpasses. And the fact that it's not a circuitous route, but a straight street makes it easier to navigate. When I mentioned Playa Vista, I was mostly referencing the jobs there. I'm well aware that most of the residents that live there wouldn't be within a 10-minute walk of the station.
Quote:
A lot of urbanism in LA is about cost and politics so without this gauge, LA will be forever frustrating. This is a lens that posters neglect so often and often see these issues morphing its head and then query why nothing gets done. As I witnessed as part of many coalitions organizing around Transportation issues (from Transit Coalition and FriendsForExpo) this is the most important lens in making things happen.
|
Of course pragmatism is needed. But I also believe that we shouldn't automatically accept the constraints of the status quo, but instead challenge them. If it's "frustrating" as you say, why would you want to perpetuate the cycle? The local cultural/political infrastructure clearly isn't working, so we should change it.
Quote:
BTW I will leave you this food for thought around the case for densification along the corridor and where the politics reared its ugly head... Did you know that there were 2 developments near the Expo/Bundy station that got opposed and prevented from construction for many years due to neighborhood concerns until finally the project got scaled down to this.
https://www.2preservela.org/westside...-mega-project/
Also around Mar Vista at a recent Planning Commissioner hearing near Venice/Centinela an infill development had its height reduced from 5 stories down to 3 due to neighborhood opposition that Councilmember Bonin agreed with the community on. So this is not the slam dunk of density and development that you believe it will be.
|
Increased density is a much easier sell if you have a subway. Also, what about shifting attitudes over generations? When this thing is completed, many Boomers will be either too old (or not around) to put up resistance.
Quote:
Ridership on the bus service in the area which is significantly higher around Sepulveda/Venice. Yes Purple Line will make housing options change. However,What is the cost of said housing? Can a college student really afford it? I think they wont and will need to travel much farther which is a net benefit of the corridor however where these students are living NOW and in future will be key for ridership on this southern leg of this corridor for us to get the greatest bang for ridership to build the line. And it is possible that UCLA will go vertical on its campus but how would residents in the rich enclaves around UCLA will feel about this vertical profile?
|
What percentage of off-campus UCLA students currently live in Palms/Culver City area and take the bus regularly to campus?
The residential section between Gayley and Veteran is technically considered off-campus, and is already relatively dense. And while most of it isn't within 10-minute walking distance of a station at (let's assume) Westwood Plaza and Strathmore, almost all of it is within 15 minutes. UCLA could operate a frequent shuttle service that makes a big loop (Strathmore-Gayley-Veteran-Strathmore) to make walking an easier option.
Quote:
That is a key fundamental reality that we have to grapple with that you open up another question and I think fundamentally highlights our difference in opinion. You see it idealistically, where all the stars have to align. I am looking at this pragmatically on the trends that is leading to how the stars will align.
|
I don't think pragmatism and idealism have to be mutually exclusive. I try and balance the two. But I think we need to stop treating all these rail projects as "congestion relievers" and instead view them as ways to change the transportation culture here. It's possible, but there isn't a critical mass of urban-minded thinkers in this city; we're still a really small minority faction, but it's definitely grown in the last 10 years.