German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseCensus profiles for Purple Line MOS-5 stations
Here you have it. MetroRiderLA has plumbed the depths of Census Bureau data to get a profile of stations for the proposed subway to the sea extensions of the Purple Line, and threw in the Pink Line as a bonus.
This effort all got started as a case to keep the Wilshire/Crenshaw station included, and then expanded to get a better outlook for all stations on the proposed subway extension. If this is your first opportunity reading this, look at the profiles for MOS-1 (to Fairfax Avenue), MOS-2 (to Century City), MOS-3 (to Westwood and Barrington Avenue) and MOS-4 (West Hollywood).
Each station has population density maps from census tracts to blocks, centered on the potential station site. Below that are tables showing indicators revealing factors closely tied to transit usage: transit share of commute trips, walking share of commute trips, renter-occupied dwellings, individuals below the poverty level and households with no or 1 vehicle.
Wilshire/Bundy Station
Photo by rox sm via Flickr; used with a Creative Commons license
Bundy Drive shares a similar density profile and transit usage to its closest station, Barrington Avenue. It is the western bookend to a dense high-rise office corridor that is also L.A.’s “Embassy Row.” Bundy also includes residences in the eastern edge of the Santa Monica city limits. West of Bundy, the high-rise office buildings disappear, but residences near Wilshire Boulevard are in the densest census tracts in Santa Monica.
| Census tract | 90025 | 90049 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Block group | 90025 | 90049 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Block | 90025 | 90049 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Factors, in percentages | 90025 | 90049 | L.A. City | 90403 | 90404 | Santa Monica | L.A. County |
| Transit as a share of work trips | 7.2 | 1.3 | 10.2 | 2.8 | 8.2 | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| Walking as a share of work trips | 3.8 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 2.9 |
| Renter occupied units | 76.9 | 47.1 | 61.4 | 74.4 | 77.7 | 70.2 | 52.1 |
| Individuals below poverty level | 15.1 | 5.3 | 22.1 | 9.4 | 14.6 | 10.4 | 17.9 |
| Households with access to 0 or 1 vehicles | 60.4 | 45.6 | 56.8 | 66.5 | 63.8 | 63.1 | 49.6 |
Number of buses per hour for midday service in each direction (fractions rounded up to the next integer):
| Weekdays | Saturdays | Sundays | |
| 704 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 720 west of Westwood Bl. | up to 15 | up to 12 | up to 10 |
| Big Blue Bus 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| Big Blue Bus 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Big Blue Bus 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Big Blue Bus 14 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Wilshire/26th Street Station
Photo originally by cfarivar via Flickr; remixed with a Creative Commons license
A station at 26th Street would be the easternmost station within Santa Monica’s city limits. The station could be placed at the gas station in the above photo that charged more than $5 a gallon of gas last summer. What would be around it? A strip of mostly single- or two-story retail boutiques and restaurants. This station would be oriented more toward the residences around Wilshire — and there are many, as the Census maps show. Though the density falls off sharply north of Montana Avenue.
| Census tract | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Block group | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Block | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Factors, in percentages | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 | Santa Monica | L.A. County |
| Transit as a share of work trips | 1.9 | 2.8 | 8.2 | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| Walking as a share of work trips | 2.0 | 3.6 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 2.9 |
| Renter occupied units | 31.9 | 74.4 | 77.7 | 70.2 | 52.1 |
| Individuals below poverty level | 3.6 | 9.4 | 14.6 | 10.4 | 17.9 |
| Households with access to 0 or 1 vehicles | 39.8 | 66.5 | 63.8 | 63.1 | 49.6 |
Number of buses per hour for midday service in each direction (fractions rounded up to the next integer):
| Weekdays | Saturdays | Sundays | |
| 704 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 720 west of Westwood Bl. | up to 15 | up to 12 | up to 10 |
| Big Blue Bus 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| Big Blue Bus 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Big Blue Bus 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Mini Blue Bus Crosstown | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Wilshire/16th Street Station and Wilshire/4th (the sea) station
Photo by Yours Truly. This and other photos can be seen on the MetroRiderLA Flickr pool.
Yes, the two stations are nearly a mile apart, but they share enough census data with the 26th Street station that much of the data are redundant. For the purposes of this dual entry, the maps are centered around the intersection of Wilshire and Fourth Street. Sixteenth Street is not at all unlike 26th Street, except that it is near the UCLA Medical Center.
Fourth Street is the closest Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa can hope to get the subway to the sea. There are probably some purists out there who insists that the subway to the sea must be interpreted literally and have a stop at the end of the Santa Monica Pier or something. These are likely the same people who complained the Gold Line is too slow after the Marmion Way passage took away two minutes of their lives that they’ll never get back.
Fourth Street is no slouch. While Santa Monica’s downtown area is not thick with homes, the coastal business district is both a draw for tourists and beachcombers and provides tens of thousands of service-sector jobs. Just a block away is the Third Street Promenade, which was a forefather of the pedestrian renaissance in Southern California. Fourth and Santa Monica Boulevard is also the nexus of Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus routes. It’s a logical terminus for the subway.
But then, Santa Monica will have two rail lines, both going between the downtowns of Santa Monica and Los Angeles. So, I now pose this question to MetroReaders: Should Metro try to make an effort to have a single Santa Monica terminal for both the Expo and Purple lines? (Yes, it’s a test to see if you’ve read this far.) And a bonus question: What do you think is preferable: Two stations at 16th and 26th streets, or splitting the difference between the two and building a single station at 20th Street?
Anyway, here are the data for 16th and Fourth streets, with maps centered at the latter:
| Census tract | 90401 | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Block group | 90401 | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 |
| Block | 90401 | 90402 | 90403 | N/A |
| Factors, in percentages | 90401 | 90402 | 90403 | 90404 | Santa Monica | L.A. County |
| Transit as a share of work trips | 4.4 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 8.2 | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| Walking as a share of work trips | 9.1 | 2.0 | 3.6 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 2.9 |
| Renter occupied units | 92.6 | 31.9 | 74.4 | 77.7 | 70.2 | 52.1 |
| Individuals below poverty level | 19.6 | 3.6 | 9.4 | 14.6 | 10.4 | 17.9 |
| Households with access to 0 or 1 vehicles | 78.9 | 39.8 | 66.5 | 63.8 | 63.1 | 49.6 |
Number of buses per hour for midday service in each direction (fractions rounded up to the next integer) near 4th Street:
| Weekdays | Saturdays | Sundays | |
| 333 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 704 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 720 west of Westwood Bl. | up to 15 | up to 12 | up to 10 |
| Big Blue Bus 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| Big Blue Bus 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Big Blue Bus 3 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 2-4 |
| Big Blue Bus 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Big Blue Bus 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Big Blue Bus 7 / Rapid 7 | up to 12 | 4 | 4 |
| Big Blue Bus 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Big Blue Bus 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Big Blue Bus 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
In terms of 16th/26th vs. 20th St, I think it should depend on where the Expo stations are, and stagger them.
I don’t have an opinion one way or the other regarding a transfer station
Today, I’d combine 26th and 16th and go for 20th Street. 20th Street is a crosstown street and is closer to the job centers at that part of town. Unless, of course, Santa Monica agrees for much greater density at 16th St and 26th Street.
I would love to have seen a Coney Island like terminus where the Purple Line and that Expo Line come together near the pier. However, the Expo Line will be up and running years before any construction on this portion. Bookending the Promenade with the Expo and Purple lines works too.
Since Phase 5 won’t be built for a long time, I’d like to see a streetcar from the Barrington Station in West L.A. down Wilshire to Ocean blvd and then south to Venice Beach.
Having both the Red Line and Expo terminate in Santa Monica is a waste of resources. Expo should be rerouted and terminate in Venice. Solves the Cheviot Hills problem, serves higher density areas and adds Venice to the Metro map.
I think Metro and Santa Monica should study an underground tunnel/shopping arcade linking the 2 terminals (4th/Olympic and 4th Wilshire). But even without such a physical link, there is no reason why Metro couldn’t implement a “meta” transfer point. The proposed terminal for both Expo and Wilshire lines are close enough that with a fully functioning TAP card system by 2038 (one would hope!!!) that there should be no technical reason why one couldn’t TAP out at Wilshire and walk over to the Expo terminal and TAP in for free.
I don’t have strong feeling one way or another on 20th st vs. 16th + 24th st placement of stations. It will all depends on how and if Santa Monica updates its development plan. The only thing to remember is that 20th to Bundy is a pretty long hike so you will lose some of the ridership from the West LA “condo hell” district between Santa Monica and Wilshire if there is no station at 24th. If cost becomes a concern and we must eliminate a station, I would probably lean towards keeping the station at 24th st and skipping the 16th (i.e. Bundy-24th-4th). We can always add the 16th st station later.
Sorry. I meant to say Purple Line. Routing Expo down Venice Blvd. from Culver City would follow the busier P.E. route. The Expo line was always secondary and low ridership, used primarily for freight (not much of that on the Westside these days). I doubt that things would be that much different now. Neither Cheviot Hills doesn’t want the line and now Santa Monica is complaining about the route down Colorado (just a few blocks from the future Purple Line).
The primary transit need in L.A. is to get Eastside workers to the Westside. Why not have one line going to the Culver City/Venice/Marina Del Rey area and another out Wilshire to Santa Monica ? I doubt that many Westsiders would use transit to travel between Culver City and Santa Monica. If there is a huge local North-South need, let Santa Monica build a streetcar through Ocean Park to Venice
Why are you still talking about Expo on Venice? I never seen any study to suggest that going down Venice will achieve high boarding but that is besides the point. The center of gravity for Westside jobs (both white collar and service jobs) in along the Pico and Wilshire corridors. Expo and Wilshire lines will serve this new reality quite complimentary. The Westside Pavilion station on Westwood is projected to have highest boarding of any Metro light rail station as soon as it opens… I don’t see any credible reason to support your view of no one will use Expo to travel between Culver City and Santa Monica. Forget about the right of way and what job and residential patterns were like in 1940s… if we are designing a light rail line from scratch connecting West LA to Downtown LA today, it would be stupid, make that utterly insane to not include Santa Monica and Culver City in the alignment. You could make an argument that it should be Santa Monica-Venice-Culver City-onwards… but not without either Santa Monica or Culver City in the mix.
Both the 16th and 26th street stations are clearly needed. Most people do not want to walk more than l/2 mile to a station, and even a 1 mile bike ride is at the limits of what ordinary people want in their daily commute. As it is, the purple line stops are spaced much farther apart than those in most Metro / Heavy Rail Systems. That’s okay for a long-distance line which stretches into the suburbs, but the density of jobs and housing in Santa Monica makes a good argument for more stations.
In the long run, we need regional rail (Metrolink, modernized and eleclric) in Westside, South Bay, and Greater Long Beach. Maybe in 2035 we will have enough political support to take away a few freeway lanes for 150 mph service along 110, 405 and 10, with stations every 2 to 5 miles.l When that becomes a reality, we will want many more infill stations on our light and heavy Metro rail lines.
Expo would serve Culver City. The Purple Line would serve Santa Monica. Why serve Santa Monica with two lines and leave Venice/Marina Del Rey out of the Metro system ? Wo would ever choose to go from Downtown or anywhere east to Santa Monica via U.S.C., Exposition and Culver City when there is a direct subway available ?
Has anyone looked at the ridership potential of Venice/Marina Del Rey vs. Cheviot Hills ? With the exception of Westside Pavillion (a mall), Expo mostly serves affluent, low-density neighborhoods west of Culver City. Where are the most transit dependent riders and where do they work ? Was the Venice corridor ever even looked at ? Once the subway opens, is Expo supposed to be a shuttle for BMW owners from Cluver City and West L.A. to Santa Monica, or a useful part of the regional rail system ?
Expo’s projected ridership may be overstated if the analysis didn’t include impacts of the Purple Line subway to Santa Monica. Many of the trip generators would be served by both lines. If trips to Santa Monica are diverted to the Purple Line, Expo ridership may be much less. The density is at the Downtown L.A. and Santa Monica eds of both lines. The segment between Culver City and Santa Monica has lower density than a potential segment between Culver City and Venice/Marina Del Rey.
http://www.friends4expo.org/criteria.htm
Transit Planner – this has been dragged out for years. They evaluated four options towards the end LRT with or without the ROW to Santa Monica, LRT to Venice, and BRT to Santa Monica. The LRT with ROW to Santa Monica came out the most effective in terms of cost and ridership. So, your argument about “has anybody thought about Santa Monica with two lines” is a moot point now.
And, yes, Santa Monica does need two lines that serve different corridors. The Expo Line from Santa Monica will take people closer to SMC, the Pico/Bundy office corridor, Olympic office corridor in Santa Monica, Westside Pavilion, Culver City, and USC. Destinations that will NOT be reached off the Purple Line.
I think everybody agrees with you that Venice and Marina need rail as well. However, this is not within the 30 year plan. Hopefully if we get more rail built (Expo, Foothill, Crenshaw, Downtown Connector, etc…), we’ll have more demand for lines in other areas. Preliminary, I’m hearing a Green Line/Crenshaw corridor extension from Avaiation station via Marina and Venice to connect with Expo Line in Santa Monica. But, again, that will not be in the funded portion of the MTA Long Range Plan.
Transit Planner – by the way, the “Cheviot Hills problem” has been solved. The ROW has been chosen and construction is expected to start in 2010. Again, this has been done over the EIR for the last 3 years. Did you go to any of the meetings?
Transit Planner – seriously, I’m beginning to think your user name is an exercise in irony. Please, go read the Expo analysis on Metro’s website. The Santa Monica – Cheviot Hills alignment has the highest ridership AND lowest costs estimates than every other alignments. Venice Blvd to Venice Beach was eliminated very early from the study because of low projected ridership. Culver City to Santa Monica via Westside Pavilion is the BEST option with HIGHEST ridership. Now it may be true that there is more transit dependent population in Venice than Santa Monica (I’m not so sure but let say you are right…) but a rail line is best served by taking people where they want to go… which in this case, means to jobs at Santa Monica, Westside, and Downtown LA. If going through transit dependent neighborhood is the only necessary metric for success of light rail line, then the Green line should be a roaring success!
Also, I don’t understand your rhetorical question about who will take Expo when the subway opens… You said “Wo[sic] would ever choose to go from Downtown or anywhere east to Santa Monica via U.S.C., Exposition and Culver City when there is a direct subway available”? How about people who are going from South LA to their jobs in Downtown LA or Santa Monica? Students commuting from Palms and Culver City to USC? Are you completely discounting the transportation needs of people in South LA? Are they not allowed to ride the train to their jobs in the Westside? What exactly are you trying to say???
Has anyone ever seriously looked at using the remaining P.E. right of ways in Venice as the basis for a light rail line linking the Green Line to Expo in Santa Monica via Santa Monica and Venice? Might seem like a pipedream now…but so did the Expo line twenty years ago…
David: Sorry, meant to say via Marina Del Rey and Venice…
[...] bridge when we get to it.” On the subject of the Wilshire subway, the MetroRider LA blog has exhaustive, and interesting, demographic breakdowns of every proposed new station—even the ones in Santa Monica that are a loooong way off. [...]
It’s true, Venice and for that matter MDR need to be included. It can be done many ways, with the current plan of the two lines meeting up in SM, then one of them swinging south, or with the expo line going to Venice before heading up the coast to SM (or vv. with expo line heading to Venice/MDR and the subway heading to SM before swinging south to meet up with it).
No matter what though, the lines need to meet up, so people can actually go from one to the other and get around…
Expo is a done deal.
The way to include Venice and MDR seems to be the proposed Lincoln LRT and Sepulveda LRT.
In the meantime, a Venice Rapid Bus would be helpful.
I agree that SM shouldn’t get two lines. It simply isn’t fair for the Los Angeles region as a whole.
Remember, Expo was planned when it was illegal to build subways in Los Angeles.
Now the law has been reversed, but transit planning has not been updated to reflect this.
It would make MUCH more sense to push the expo line south toward venice/MDR.
Then someday, the green line should run north/south along the 405 (stopping at LAX), connect Expo and Purple and then head to the valley.
Ok Transit Planner and your multiple personality disorder. We get it… Now give it a rest.
For the record, I am not posting under different names. Just this one. I am aware that Expo to Venice was ranked lower than the currenlty preferred alternative. My question is whether the projections were made in light of the Purple Line subway extension ? I have a feeling there could be some double counting and duplication.
I have no problem at all with Expo going to Culver City in Phase I. I’m just thinking that Phase II may need another look in light of the potential subway extension. I am wondering what would happen to cost-effectiveness and ridership when the Downtown to Santa Monica trips are shifted from Expo to the Purple Line ? It might make sense then to have Expo head toward Venice, Marina Del Rey and the airport.
I’m used to thinking outside the box and frequently notice things that are overlooked. I’ve been in this field for years and still remembered the puzzled looks I got when I predicted that there would be a “Caltrain” system operating to the Valley long before the subway would ever get there. I was only wrong about the name of the system
P.S. I still think the original “Dog Leg” route of the Red Line via Wilshire and Fairfax would have performed better than Vermont. There would be no underperforming Purple Line “stub” and we would have been able to extend it west a lot sooner. Thanks for killing it Westside. Now you want two lines ?
Downtown, the East Side and Valley are booming, partly due to better transportation. I recently read how law firms are moving from the Westside to Downtown, because it’s eaiser to attract employees from throughout the region.
One of the problems with the Green Line was that the areospace firms it was supposed to serve were decimated by the Clinton defense cuts by the the time the line could be opened. What’s going to happen to the Westside now that the business focus is shifting east toward Downtown and the entertainment industry is shrinking ?
Wow! I don’t check in for a few days and look at all the comments. Glad you’re all so interested in the subway stations. We’d love to see you at the upcoming meetings so we can get your views on the record. Can’t make it? You can still put your views on the record. Go to our website, http://www.metro.net/westside, click on “Contact Us” and have at it. You can also join our “Metro Westside Subway Extension” group on Facebook and post your comments there.
Hope to see you soon.
Jody Litvak
Metro Westside Subway Extension Team
What about putting a streetcar back on Venice Blvd.?