View Single Post
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2009, 4:53 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wright Concept View Post
Personally, I disagree because the commercial density is on par, its the residential density that is the deciding factor to tell if the investment is worth it. The projected ridership at Wilshire/Robertson was one of the lowest on the corridor meaning that would tip the balance in getting no Federal New Starts funding. Right now as suggested in the Alternatives Analysis Phase a Purple Line extension with the following stations from Wilshire/Western:

* Wilshire/La Brea
* Wilshire/Fairfax
* Wilshire/La Cienega
* Beverly Hills
* Century City
* Westwood
Sorry, I can't agree. There is high residential density north of Wilshire and plenty of opportunities for mixed-use development along Wilshire and Robertson Blvds. (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp...0478&encType=1)

And I noticed that you intentionally left out the Crenshaw station. It's too huge of a gap between Western and La Brea.

Quote:
Will barely give us a Medium FTA cost-effectiveness score. Once it slips below Medium, there better be a solid density, redevelopment and transit restructuring plan to go with this to make the ridership pencil out. The one recent exception to that rule was Charlotte with their new starter LRT on abandonded rail right of-way and upgraded existing streetcar infrastructure. Charlotte was about 10-15 cents off from the Medium rating, which would give the FTA's blessing. However because the Charlotte Planners worked out Public-Private partnerships to coincide with the stations along the line to be built and moved in by the time the rail opened and they utilized existing infrastructure and developed the abandoned railroad corridor, the FTA approved it because it showed solid public and private backing.
And that right there is the underlying problem. The FTA deliberately makes it difficult to get New Starts funding, so much so, that many projects won't get built. It's pretty clear that, given America's limited urbanity, most projects won't ever be eligible. The bar has been set too high. Even the Subway to the Sea, one of the most cost-effective projects that will ever fall onto the FTA's agenda, barely meets the frame of eligibility. It's ridiculous.

So why can't we do the same? Eliminating stations is not the solution. If there's a need, then there's a need. We need to work around those needs.

Quote:
Another example similiar to Robertson is around Wilshire/Rimpau. There are a number of high-rise buildings surrounding that intersection. It would have some distance (about 0.6 miles from La Brea, 0.75 miles from Crenshaw, 1.25 miles from Western) Could a station work? No, because the residential density surrounding this area would never get any denser or bigger. If there is one location that should have consideration for infill is the City West/Good Samaritan area. It has a high residential density, high transit dependancy, moderate to high commercial density all factors in having good ridership at the stations.
Again, if it weren't for the strict FTA rules, then this wouldn't be an issue. In NYC, low density outer Queens has several subway stops.
__________________
β€œTo tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

β€” Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Jul 13, 2009 at 5:06 AM.
Reply With Quote