Fight Brewin’ Over Crenshaw Rail Line

Picture%203.jpg

As Metro holds public meetings to discuss 13,357 different routes for a Subway to the Sea, some city officials are already trying to derail plans for a Crenshaw connection between the Purple Line, Expo Line, and the Green Line. Studies are underway for the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor, which extends approximately 10 miles from Wilshire Boulevard on the north to El Segundo Boulevard on the south.

The Larchmont Chronicle reports that the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council has given a “thumbs down” to a proposed underground Metro station at Crenshaw and Wilshire boulevards. They don’t want eff up any of their pretty neighborhoods with high-density development. So, they are opposed to any changes to the neighborhood protections in existing plans.

Why are they so adamant? Because the two preferred methods being looked at are Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail – which means above ground. NIMBYism aside, it appears the failure of surface transit like the Gold Line has taught us nothing. If we are at all concerned about speed, safety, and urban blight, the only option is to go underground.

The vote of no confidence regarding the Crenshaw line has big implications. Without efficient North/South routes that connect with existing East/West lines, a viable public transit system in L.A. will be dead on arrival.

And not to mention, late.

Crenshaw/Prairie Transit Corridor Study

3 Replies to “Fight Brewin’ Over Crenshaw Rail Line”

  1. Hmmm…I’ve said it before and will continue to do so. I am against using mass transit stations to rip up otherwise good neighborhoods only to increase density.

    Mass transit that we need so desperately needs to be in place to fix our current and future transportation needs. It can’t be an excuse to increase density, especially if it will do so at the expense of other resources like water availability and power to name 2.

    That aside subways are the least intrusive and have a lot of merit. Much more than any busway option in my book.

  2. I’m sorry but what you wrote makes little sense. You initially say, as does the Larchmont article, that the residents are opposed because of the threat of high density development in their neighborhood. Then you somehow attribute this to the fact that the mode is light rail or bus rapid transit but not subway? Where is the correlation?

    A subway requires the most density to be a successful mode and thus likely encourage the most high density development. If the Crenshaw folk are against density, the would be REALLY adamant against a subway proposal.

    You go on to say the Gold Line is an example of the failure of surface transit? You bring up speed. Do you realize that the Gold Line travels 13.42 miles in 30 minutes, an average speed of 26.84mph. The Red Line’s average speed is 30mph, and that’s really only because between Hollywood/Highland and Universal City, as it travels under the Hollywood Hiils, it gets to go full speed with no stops for over 3 miles. The Gold Line is urban blight to you? It has clean stations with public art and has encouraged new pedestrian friendly developments around it. Safety? How many Gold Line accidents are caused by drivers unable or unwilling to follow traffic laws?

Comments are closed.