German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseEditorial: MetroRiderLA’s position on Expo Line Phase 2
[tags]los angeles, metro, mta, expo line, light rail, metrorider la[/tags]
MetroRiderLA promotes the public transit lifestyle in Los Angeles through news, information and analysis. And many of our readers, along with the blog contributors, have been keenly following the developments of the Metro Expo Line.
Expo is arguably the most important major transportation project in Los Angeles County. The communities between downtown Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean contribute to the busiest transit activity in the county. Traffic has exponentially increased, as more jobs and residents move west. With both buses and cars not able to move at anything but a snail’s pace, the right of way along Exposition Boulevard is a vital asset to move a large amount of people fast.
And for Exposition Phase 2, between Culver City and Santa Monica, MetroRiderLA puts its full support behind using the right of way all the way.
The right of way has existed for over a century, and ultimately leads to the fastest and most convenient route between Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles. It is also the most affordable route.
An alternative routing suggested by some Cheviot Hills residents should be eliminated from further consideration. It adds anywhere from $100 million to $200 million to an already expensive transit project. It will add as much as 10 minutes to the overall running time, increasing operating costs and lowering ridership. It will also cause worse traffic jams on Venice and Sepulveda boulevards, and more street running accidents.
Worse, what is a driving factor behind the diversion out of Cheviot Hills beyond the usual NIMBY petulance is comments stated by a former Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association president in a Los Angeles Times article. He wants the Expo Line diverted to prevent poor Hispanics from encroaching upon the neighborhood.
Metro would be irresponsible to appease the more petulant elements of the homeowners associations by promoting a more capital- and operationally-intensive diversion. But in light of the comment in the Times, Metro must now weigh the civil rights implications of the diversion, and how pursuing the deviation further lends support to prejudice.
Metro’s purpose is not to keep petulant homeowners happy, nor to prop up its property values. Metro’s purpose is to keep Los Angeles County moving through funding transportation projects. As California’s largest transit system, Metro must act in the best interest of its existing and future transit passengers, as well as county taxpayers as a whole to choose the most affordable, most productive route. Deviating from the right of way is an abdication of responsibility.
With MetroRiderLA, along with thousands of other Angelenos who voiced their support for Expo Line and the right of way, here are the site’s recommendations for the rest of Phase 2.
Metro should build a pedstrian pathway/bikeway parallel to the train tracks along the right of way. A similar project along the Orange Line, as well as the former right of way along Culver Boulevard in Culver City, has greatly beautified its surrounding neighborhood, and provides a safe and inviting environment for bicyclists and families. Such a path would be welcomed by the Westside communities.
Here are MetroRiderLA’s recommendations for station sites:
Palms-The station should be fully grade separated, either elevated or in a trench, at the intersection of National and Palms Boulevards. This station, close to Interstate 10, would be vital to Palms and Cheviot Hills. If possible, Metro should build a small paid park-and-ride lot at this station.
Pico/Sepulveda-This is a busy intersection with busy bus connections along Pico and Sepulveda boulevards. It is very close to the Westside Pavilion and the Pico commercial corridor, and Sepulveda provides close access to UCLA as well as Fox Hills Mall, Howard Hughes Center and ultimately UCLA.
Olympic/Bundy-This is a busy office and retail corridor, as well as moderate-density housing along Bundy. The area is rich in high-technology employment. Bundy Drive should receive grade-separation, on account of heavy traffic to and from the 10 freeway.
26th Street/Cloverfield Avenue-The high-technology employment, and close proximity to the Water Garden, as well as close access to Santa Monica College’s main campus and Academy of Entertainment Technology, would lead to robust activity at this station. Look into providing paid park-and-ride spaces, and fund a high-frequency shuttle to connect the Expo station with the college campuses.
14th Street-This station provides access to Santa Monica’s Memorial Park, Woodlawn Cemetery and the Medical Center on Santa Monica Boulevard. Consider providing park-and-ride space at this station.
Downtown Santa Monica-This station should receive extra attention. The closeness to the ocean and shopping, as well as service industry jobs, means extra heavy activity at this station. Work with developers to provide a general-use parking structure, similar to the other public garages nearby. The garage should also house an off-street bus terminal for Metro and Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus lines. Work with Big Blue Bus to allow Metro buses to be serviced, and drivers to take relief, at the nearby bus garage. Also work with developers to provide transit-oriented storefronts at this station (coffee houses, convenience stores, day care, etc.).
Metro should plan for heavy activity on this line, perhaps equipping the service for four-car trains, and as many grade separations as affordable.
Metro should also coordinate to have at least one north-south and east-west bus, with at least 30 minute service frequencies every day, at each station. Metro, Santa Monica and Culver CityBus should also make the Culver Junction the important inland Westside transit center, moving away from the freeway underpass at La Cienega Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue, and elimination of the Pico/Rimpau Transit Center.
MetroRiderLA will present a bus restructuring plan to the affected agencies at a later date. Bus connections are critical to the success of the Expo Line.
The contributors of MetroRiderLA submit this document for the public record to Metro and the Expo Line planning team.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Based on ridership on the 5, 7 and other buses coming out of Pico/Rimpau, I’m not sure it makes sense to move the termini that are there to Culver Junction, especially with the potential dedicated bus lanes on Olympic and Pico.
Some of the Cheviot Hills people want to see Light Rail with a Green Way. It is a fabulous proposal that address water and rail issues and grade separates the line under Westwood and Overland. Have a look, as it is a winning idea.
Don: Pico/Rimpau is in such a bizarre area, I think we have to look at doing something. I wonder where the ridership on the SM5&7 is coming from, what segment of the ride is getting folks onto the busses - I don’t seriously think Pico/Rimpau is a transit destination in and of itself ;p. I think the issue dates back from when the transit center was created, simply to create a dividing line between services - so is this instead an opportunity to invite Metro to resume service along the length of Pico and Olympic? For Metro and SM bus to share service? (i.e. like what is done in Santa Monica, where the 33 picks up slack that is left behind when SM service isn’t frequent).
While there’s a lot of folks dubious, and with good reason, about Metro Connections and what effect it’ll have (I haven’t personally seen the extent of the proposals yet), independent of that, there is a great deal of value to relocating transfer points to rail stations, where rail can absorb much more ridership etc. than busses. Taking a train to a bus is much more attractive than a bus to a bus, or worse yet, a train to a bus to another bus, and that’s why situating westside transit centers along Metro Expo is an important idea. Expo is going to attract new riders, but it’s also going to pull riders from other east/west services, so let’s not make those lives more difficult.
I do not understand the NIMBYism regarding the ¾ mile if the Expo line through Cheviot Hills.
All over the world, homes and rentals properties close to a transit lines always fetch top dollar! The property values always go UP aound transit, not DOWN…
What is Cheviot Hills’ problem?
Noise? The damn Santa Monica Fwy generates far more noise pollution than a light rail train ever will.
Safety? Tell your kids not to play on the tracks! My parents taught me to stay away from railroad tracks before I could speak.
I live less than 1000 feet from a proposed station in Santa Monica. I can’t wait for it to be built! I know my property values will skyrocket. But I won’t want to move, having waited almost 30 years for a rail line to be built.
I think rather than Pico/Sepulveda, the stop should be at Pico and Westwood. There is high commercial activity there with Westside Pavilion and lots of restaurants and coffee shops. It doesn’t make sense to put the train stop further down such a natural “downtown” area.
Otherwise, agreed!
The transit center at Pico/Rimpau is not there “to create a dividing between services.” You have it backwards. The dividing line was created because the transit center was there. Namely, it originally was the terminal of the Los Angeles Railway “P” line coming down Pico from downtown. After the streetcars were ripped out in 1963, it was turned into a bus transfer station.
I recommend the study of placing a “cap” over the right of way next to Cheviot Hills, with a linear park placed on top of that. The NIMBYs over there would never see or hear the train, and they’d get a new park out of the deal. This is less than 1/2 a mile of the ROW. I think this option should be studied to see if it is affordable. That’s my olive branch and compromise extended to the fearful homeowners in Cheviot Hills.
I would argue for stops at Westwood and Sepulveda. The line would pass below Overland below grade, the station at Westwood (1 block south of Pico) at grade, and Sepulveda with an elevated station. These two stations would be about 1/2 mile apart.
Sorry Scott, my phrasing was poor - I thought the bus center was created by Santa Monica etc. bus companies back in the day because the streetcars were getting too expensive for people? A sort of fare revolt? Or am I crossing my history again? ;p So instead of taking one train from the westside to downtown, people took two cheaper busses and skipped the newly expensive Red cars entirely.
I wish there was a book about this stuff ;p.
“I wish there was a book about this stuff”
There is:
History of Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus by Ayer, Bob.
Santa Monica Library has a couple of noncirculating copies….
I think that the Santa Monica Downtown Station should take into consideration that it will eventually be the Union Station of the Westside, and all possible future lines should be considered, such as a 405 parallel line, the Purple Line, the Green Line and hopefully others as well.
cph: *laugh* thanks, I appreciate it, I may have to go skim that someday, right after I track down a library copy of that $40 book on state and local government in California… I swear, this state is basically a nation into itself. And we don’t exactly use the same Commonwealth style of government that Massachusetts has, apparently… Christ, Mass. still has a privy council, only renamed to governor’s council because nobody would know what a privy council is otherwise.
The NIMBY proposal to move the tracks to Venice Sepulveda would wreak havoc, blocking traffic at National/Venice; Motor/Venice; Overland/Venice; Midland/Venice, Sepulveda/Venice; Sepulveda/Charnock; Sepulveda/Palms; Sepulveda/National.
The Cheviot NIMBYs worry that the track would be close to Overland Elementary. But their proposed diversion would run right past Charnock elementary.
The families at Overland live in 2-3 million houses. The families at Charnock rent apartments and are at least 60% English-as-Second-Language.
I think we know what’s going on with the NIMBYs….don’t we?