Addendum to “The Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw Station” | MetroRiderLA
MetroRiderLA, Opinion, T.O.D.
Addendum to “The Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw Station”
Contributed by Wad on August 19th, 2009 at 2:43 am
The discussion to the last thread, “The Case for a Wilshire/Crenshaw station”, was provocative enough to generate a lot of smart discussion. It also has generated quite a bit of attention, so welcome to those reading here for the first time or following from the following links:
* Metro’s Westside Subway Extension Facebook page
* LAist, which is generating its own discussions on this very same topic (with some identical comments seen here)
* The topic has some national interest from Reconnecting America (the Center for Transit-Oriented Development). It was the lead story in a subscriber e-newsletter. Thanks to Streetsblog’s Damien Newton for forwarding the e-newsletter.
If I missed any others, apologies for the omission. Feel free to post links in the comments.
Based on what I have found on the Census Bureau’s Web site, I will also do density profiles and transit usage data for other proposed stations. They won’t be cases for or against particular stations — Crenshaw was a unique case because Metro is keeping it as an option. The others are more definitive. I’ll get to them as I have the time, so I can’t promise any deadlines. Check back often.
I also want to give thanks to all the commenters, both supporters and opponents, for keeping the discussion civil and informative. Rapid Transit Advocate, in particular, has made some very persuasive comments against a station at Wilshire and Crenshaw boulevards.
I feel, though, some of his or her points need a strong counter-rebuttal.
In Comment No. 6, you allude to me negating my own argument by saying Crenshaw is close enough to Western to be redundant. The two stations would be a half-mile apart. That would be acceptable for an urban heavy rail system designed not only to be fast, but also carry hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of passengers daily. The subway is designed for capacity as much as for speed.
The subway has several station pairs that are less than a mile: Civic Center-Pershing Square; Pershing Square-7th Street Metro Center; Wilshire/Vermont-Wilshire-Normandie; Wilshire/Normandie-Wilshire/Western; and Hollywood/Vine-Hollywood/Highland. It’s not without precedent. Also, a station generates more riders when it exists than when it doesn’t.
That’s a “Well, duh!” thing to say, but it’s a way of illustrating the network effect. The choice comes down to build or no build, but the consequences on ridership have broader consequences. What choice will produce more ridership: One station or one minute of time saved?
A trip from Western to Crenshaw would be one minute, based on the same time and distance between the Western and Normandie stations. The distance from Crenshaw to La Brea is 1.5 miles, which is close to 2 minutes based on current schedules. Western to La Brea is 2 miles. Because of the great distance between those stops, a train can likely go between the two stops in 2 to 3 minutes.
The time penalty of a Crenshaw stop would be 1 minute at most.
How much ridership do you suppose the subway loses on account of the one minute penalty? And conversely, how many more people would be making subway trips because it was one minute faster?
Weigh that number versus the addition of a station at Wilshire/Crenshaw. Will there be more riders using a station at Crenshaw versus the ridership lost because of the one minute penalty? Or can we skip the Crenshaw station knowing that the lost ridership is offset by those who gained a minute faster ride?
The network effect of a Crenshaw station influences the activity of at least one other station on the subway. One boarding gained at Wilshire/Crenshaw is one exit gained somewhere else. Also, 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 also a destination for schools, churches and a performing arts space.
The residences can be seen in the Census maps. I framed those around the proposed station’s likely catch area, bounded by Wilton to the east, Olympic to the South, Lucerne and Rossmore to the west and 3rd to the north. I used Wilton as a cutoff because it is exactly halfway between Crenshaw and Western, so there’s a quarter-mile bias rather than a half-mile bias. The census tract view in each of the 3 zip codes gives a snapshot of population per square mile. Most of the tracts are in the palest shade. In 90005, however, the palest shade lumps together the lowest density of 4,233 p/mi^2 and 12,342 p/mi^2. The lowest density, 4,233 p/mi^2, is the tony northwest section between Irving, 6th, Rossmore and 3rd. Even this area is nearly twice as high as the Los Angeles County density of 2,344 p/mi^2.
The station site would be in tract 2127, which is the upper bound of 12,342 p/mi^2. This tract is more than 5 times the county density.
The next shade up is for an area between Wilshire, Wilton, 8th and Bronson. The census tract, 2126.10, shows the maximum bound for that shade: 30,029 p/mi^2. Just south of that is a pea-green shade for tract 2126.20, which is the maximum bound of 45,682 p/mi^2.
If you read the 90010 and 90020 data, you’ll also see a surprisingly dense pocket in the northwest quadrant of the station’s catch area, bounded by Wilton, Wilshire, Irving and 3rd. It falls under tract 2117.01, showing 11,792 p/mi^2.
What makes the neighborhoods around this station a case study is how the neighborhood camouflages its density. It’s overwhelmingly residential, but it’s how historical structures and land uses absorbed larger populations that weren’t supposed to appear but did anyway. It occurred because of the unique patchwork of buildings and land uses within this area created by osmosis.
So what’s my angle? I’m not supporting the Wilshire/Crenshaw station as a stalking horse to alter the neighborhood’s character or as a “Johnny Density-seed.” I don’t see a station as going hand-in-hand with the elimination of the HPOZs or even the Park Mile plan, for that matter. I support the station mainly to get transit right. Getting it right means not tunneling past an opportunity for the sake of political expediency or cutting corners to hit the federal subsidy sweet spot — then having to answer for it a generation later. What’s as bad as passing by Crenshaw? When the subway is built, the neighborhood gets a case of buyer’s remorse and demands an infill station at higher cost and disruption to a busy line.
The reason why Metro placed Crenshaw in the optional category is that the station is in limbo between two precedents: The subway battles of the 1970s-1980s in the very same neighborhood; and the Cheviot Hills right-of-way vs. Venice/Sepulveda diversion of more recent times. It’s planning for both scenarios. It’s anticipating a fierce battle from the same neighborhood groups as before, and it must decide if it should acquiesce or engage opposition. It also must give equal weight to each alternative.
It’s 30 years later, and it’s the same neighborhood but a very different L.A. The neighborhoods in question are not only heavily dense, but demographics have changed. Asians are the largest ethnic group in the three zip codes, and there are also many more Hispanics and mixed-race residents who have moved in. Not only that, but the areas already support a high degree of transit usage and walking for an area with no rail transit. The station is bringing together a neighborhood and a service that are compatible.
No comments:
Post a Comment