[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

Compare that with Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Beverly, Century City and Westwood? It's not close at the moment and most of that residential density is greater around the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai area. Also the limit of density along that corridor at Wilshire/Robertson is 6-8 stories for Commercial, 3-4 stories depending on lot size. We could get those same increases regardless of a subway station. If a solid Beverly Hills zoning plan were shown for a massive upzoning in that area in conjunction with the subway station and that area could then we'd have something to work with.

Wilshire/Robertson has about the same residential density as Wilshire/Beverly and Wilshire/Westwood. Take a look at that area again using the link I provided. It is DENSE. And what's wrong with 3-8 stories? Are you expecting more skyscrapers to be built?

There is only so much $$$ to go around. Regional Connector is more cost-effective that the Wilshire Subway right now and that doesn't include Expo to Santa Monica or the Gold Line extension to Azusa/Citrus College, that rating can improve even more.

That's because ridership projections for the Wilshire Subway are severely underestimated. I can't believe a corridor that dense, both commercially and residentially, barely meets the FTA standard. Something's wrong.

What is the "need", how is that "need" defined? Because any "need" can pose itself as a need. That is why of the rules. Without those kind of rules you'll have silly and much more wasteful projects like BART to San Jose or Boston's Silver Line BRT subway or a subway from Chatsworth to Simi Valley. How do we work around that, well we could do a number of ideas;

There's clearly a need for a station between La Cienega and Beverly. The commercial and residential density along that 1.3-mile gap speaks for itself.

* Have stronger public-private partnerships with development, landbanking and increases in zoning for growth. The Toronto's first subway, Yonge Street subway was done with this in mind with a intensive upzoning along the entire subway corridor at the same time as the subway was being built.

If we were to do this then wouldn't that offset the cost of an additional station?

The Feds saw Charlotte's LRT plan as not only for mobility of moving people but building affordable and economically sustainable neighborhoods, that economically sustainable neighborhood means more $$$ for Washington D.C.

And this is not achievable along Wilshire?

First of all, those were built before there was an FTA, they were built privately without union labor and not needed fire sprinklers and other fire/life safety requirements in their infrastructure. You can't compare the two.

I know that. I'm talking more about the design aspect. Just because there's low-density doesn't mean a station is dismissible. It's like if our bus system were to bypass Beverly Hills and other wealthy areas because the populace can afford to drive. Transit is supposed to serve everyone.

In the case of Wilshire/Robertson, if we disregard finances for a second and focus entirely on the design, then it makes absolute sense to place a station there.