A DASH would solve all of this: it's cheap and could start tomorrow.
Tom: I didn't propose eliminating other stations west of Crenshaw. The model results from MTA show that all those stations are well-justified: they are at major intersections and activity centers where several busy bus lines intersect. The Wilshire/Crenshaw area, on the other hand, has no major activity center or concentration of jobs and/or residences to justify a SUBWAY station (the most expensive transit station option). Even the small number of people that use this bus stop is due to transfers from the south (Crenshaw) - in the future, the Crenshaw line will NOT connect to the subway at Crenshaw. So there is no viable argument for a SUBWAY station here. It can still be a bus stop with service to the east (Western, Koreatown) and west (La Brea, Miracle Mile..) where the few people that got on the bus near Wilshire/Crenshaw can transfer to the subway.
Using the argument that 2 miles without a station is too long is so simple (and just as stupid as the idea of eliminating all stops between Western and Westwood). The point of the subway is to provide access to the major Westside centers (Miracle Mile, Downtown Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood, West LA, etc.) NOT to make it easier for millionaires to walk to a subway stop (which they are unlikely to do anyway). A 1/2 mile walk, at worst, for a FEW people is better than spending $153 million of taxpayer money AND increase travel time by even a minute - all just to save a few people some time. Simple concept: provide the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people.
Tom: I can see why eliminating another stop so close to others (Vermont-Normandie-Western-Crenshaw would all be only 1/2 mile apart) would be a justified travel time savings when you consider the cost ($153 million). I don't recall anyone claiming to take out all the other stations to Westwood (that's just dumb and Peter doesn't say anything close to it).
Do the simple math: eliminating a station that is only going to increase ridership by just over 1,000 in order to save TENS of thousands of people even ONE minute travel time (which does actually make a big difference in ridership) AND to decrease the project's cost by $153 million OR potentially add another station in a dense area to the west of the 405 (a huge barrier) makes sense. You don't have to be a transportation planner or any kind of expert to understand that.
In regards to Peters posting above: The issue of travel time came up at the MTA meetings. The time gained by ommitting this station is negligible and was quickly dismissed as a non-issue.
But if you follow that logic anyway, you could eliminate every stop between Westwood and Western. That would REALLY increase ridership at the Westwood station and REALLY improve travel time for all those patrons. Seems kind of stupid though, doesn't it. But that would be the reality, despite the fact that it makes for bad urban planning. Just as bad as running the subway for two miles in the middle of the city without a station.
No one has mentioned that eliminating Crenshaw will also improve the speed and travel times of the subway, thereby saving EVERYONE ELSE who DOESNT get on/off right at the Crenshaw station TIME!!! Higher speeds, one less stop, lower travel time = HIGHER RIDERSHIP for the entire line!!!
'North of Wilshire': the demand for Crenshaw is simply "high" because the travel demand model most likely indicates that many potential transit riders from western Koreatown (west of Western, closer to Wilton) will choose the Crenshaw station over Western. Also, the model is most likely including all the Crenshaw bus (not rail since Measure R doesn't include funds to extend the Crenshaw line north of Expo) riders that are forced to transfer at Crenshaw. If you look at the numbers WITHOUT Crenshaw, the model clearly shows that a majority of these Crenshaw station riders will simply use either Western or La Brea instead. The net loss of riders is just over 1,000, which in subway terms, is practically nothing. An incredibly expensive investment like a subway should seek to MAXIMIZE ridership as much as possible. That means serving the most dense areas, where the most number of people and jobs are. If you had to choose either a West LA station, which is filled with office buildings and apartment buildings, over serving a very wealthy neighborhood of SINGLE FAMILY homes on large lots, which would you choose??????
The answer is clear: eliminating the Crenshaw station will not cause a significant net loss in riders. Eliminating a station west of the 405, however, would probably eliminate at least 8,000 riders based on Metro's model (and common sense - just take a visit to Wilshire around Barrington, then Wilshire at Crenshaw). Remember that Crenshaw is only 1/2 mile from Western and that the majority of people who are going to use the subway are just to the EAST of Crenshaw, close to the incredibly dense Koreatown, not right at Crenshaw (where there are literally mansions right behind Wilshire). And if you think more than a dozen or so Hancock Park/Windsor Square homeowners are going to use the subway REGULARLYl, you're living in a dream. There are, however, tens of thousands of residents, including university students, in West LA that are dying for a subway. Let's focus our resources where we will get the most return!!!
The gist is:
Building a station every half-mile is folly.
Building a station in a low-density residential area is folly.
Trying to build enough stations so that EVERYONE can walk to them is folly.
And if it's okay to be reverse-snobs and make disparaging remarks about people who are successful, often, though not always, because they are hard working, talented and resourceful, and who in large part paid all the taxes that are funding this fiasco and voted for Measure R,then you open the door to starting in on the low income, the impoverished, the elderly, the unemployed etc. It's bigoted, it's prejudiced, and it's just plain wrong. Tone down the rhetoric.
Yes, Yes, Yes. The only reason there would not a crenshaw stop is that entitled rich people in hancock park don't want it.
Has anyone considered building a station at a smaller scale?
Nearly all the stations currently on the Red and Purple lines are massive, cathedral-like vaults with a platform level and at least one mezzanine level, and with wide stairways/escalators to surface plazas. That's going to be expensive by default. How much would it cost to build a smaller station, without the big mezzanine and all the other trimmings, like one you'd find on the Paris Metro or the London Tube? I'm all for building large, accessible, high capacity stations, but if this one isn't expecting huge ridership, why not reduce it's size to reduce the cost? It wouldn't have to be ugly or anything, just smaller and different.
I guess I'm just a sucker for a compromise.
The Metro slide show, to which Steve Hymon links, said that -- 25 years in the future as I recall -- to NOT have a Wilshire-Crenshaw station would mean a net of 1,300 fewer riders (not 4,220 or 4,320 fewer) on the transit system. But this whole blog commentary (and Hymon's popularity "poll") is such a bad way to PLAN. Why don't we just wait and see what the Metro transit experts and their consultants believe is best for the whole County transit system? These experts are the ones who can interpret the data, and they are the ones who know how far their money can stretch. (After all, my cousin, Jim, may agree with North of Wilshire but think there actually should be TWO added stations, one at Crenshaw AND one at Highland -- but what does Jim know?) I agree with North of Wilshire on one matter though . . . last comment!.
Last comment. For those who would prefer not to think about hypothetically inevitable growth, look at Metro's numbers.
The LaBrea station, with the line terminating at the VA, would have 3,810 projected daily boarders in 2035, the Crenshaw stop, 4,320.
The LaBrea station, with the line terminating at UCLA, would have 3,720 projected daily boarders in 2035, the Crenshaw stop, 4,220.
The Crenshaw stop also outperforms LaBrea with the additional West Hollywood lines and Santa Monica Extension. Thus, the Crenshaw stop outperforms the LaBrea stop in every scenario.
Why isn't Metro telling us what the expected ridership loss to the system would be if the LaBrea stop were cut? Why is the demand for the Crenshaw stop so consistently high? Should we get rid of the apparently less trafficked LaBrea stop and the Crenshaw stop-- both via the same logic-- and just tunnel the whole way to Fairfax?
No. We should build both stops and plan for the future, not base our judgments on the present.
Tom says he is well-traveled. Maybe he also is really well informed about the views of all, or most, of the people who own homes in Hancock Park ("The ONLY reason this station is being questioned is because Hancock Park homeowners oppose it because . . . ").
Well, Tom, I do not own a home in Hancock Park. Nonetheless, I oppose ADDING this station (it was not conceived by transit planners; it only was suggested years ago for political reasons prior to the study and adoption of a REAL "Crenshaw" Line). Many (most?) other bus and train USERS, like me, oppose building this station because -- according to Metro -- it only would ADD about 1,300 transit users to the system. But it would SUBTRACT $153 MILLION from the funds needed to move the subway WEST.
Any major transit investment has a land use / development impact, of course. It can be a good or bad impact, depending on your point of view. But one thing is certain: Investing OUR scarce transit dollars in an unneeded station at Crenshaw and Wilshire would be a mistake from a TRANSIT PLANNING & FUNDING standpoint. THAT (not any homeowner opposition) is the reason the extra station should NOT be added.
Leaving out Crenshaw is bad urban planning. For all of my traveling, I have never visited a city where a subway - a subway smack in the middle of the city itself - runs for a two mile stretch without a stop. In outlying areas, yes, but not in the middle of the city. From Singapore to Pittsburgh, PA, stations are placed within walkable distances of each other.
Further, this two mile stretch without a station is not some undeveloped piece of parkland. Wilshire is lined with low rise (and a few high rise) office buildings. And Crenshaw itself is lined with apartment buildings. These are all potential commuters who can take the subway and leave their cars home.
The ONLY reason this is station is being questioned is because Hancock Park homeowners oppose it because they feel it will put development pressure on their neighborhood specific plan. That is all. If not for them, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It is very sad that one elite group of people can have such a disproportionate impact on city transportation needs.
My point is that the plan for this section of Wilshire is not practical, and if we are to plan for the future, as opposed to basing a long term decision on a short term perspective, then we are in for the same pain that the Westside lives in every day. Economics dictate that three story single use office buildings are not going to be profitable in this part of the city. Not when there are other places to live/work/eat in the city. Occupancy rates will continue to stay just as low, if not lower. The street will continue to be ghost town, with for lease signs everywhere. Isn't it logical to think that property values of the homes near such a ghost town will suffer?
The economy is not to blame for the current state of this stretch of Wilshire, the plan is. The plan treats this chunk of Wilshire as if it is an office park in Irvine, with unlimited parking and the same density for miles around.
As it stands right now, the idea is to create a stretch of Orange County style mini office parks between Wilton and Highland. I'm sure the concept sounded nice 30 years ago, but so did the idea of taking out all of the street cars in Los Angeles once upon a time. Some ideas do not withstand the test of time.
If you work in one of these 3 story office complexes, you have no place to go to lunch. You have no drugstore to pick up needed items. You are boxed in and either must have a car to get out (and thus need parking), or you have to get on a bus and sit on Wilshire. Doesn't it seem weird that the sidewalks are completely empty in the middle of this stretch of Wilshire? It is well known that foot traffic is what makes an area safe-- people watching people. What is the incentive in the current plan for people to walk down Wilshire? What is the incentive for a neighborhood resident to walk down to Wilshire, which is in some cases just 2-3 blocks away?
No, the neighborhoods should not be bulldozed, the beauty of LA is that you can have space and enjoy being in Southern CA. The beauty of LA should-- and will -- be that in the future that some can have space, and some can live a more urban lifestyle, in close proximity to each other. The idea of neatly segmenting each use into separate pieces only makes sense if you design the transit system to skip over everything in between-- as the anti folks are advocating here. Shouldn't the transit system link them all together? Isn't that the point?
I get that opponents of the stop think taking the bus to this stretch of Wilshire from either end of the donut hole is the more cost efficient way to do this. The time it takes to get to the rail line, take the purple line to Western or LaBrea, and then go above ground and hope that you hit your connection right on a Wilshire Blvd bus will be a significant deterrent for someone who works at the midpoint between the 2 stations. In fact, Metro puts that number at 1,200 people-- and that is assuming Wilshire continues to look as it does. Which it won't.
I happen to think that if Metro is going to be digging out an access point during the construction phase at Crenshaw, and using the empty lots as a staging ground, it makes sense to spend the money now to put in escalators and carve out a box, rather than closing the hole back up. Yes, it costs a lot of money, but spread that out over the life of the system and it is not wasteful. If it were wasteful Metro would not be able to include it in the project per funding requirements.
The primary motivation of anti-Crenshaw stop folks is a fear of what it might lead to. Those fears can be mitigated through smart planning. The current plan is not smart planning-- it is an old way of trying to restrict growth. The answer is not to choke the middle of the City's main street in the hopes that everything will stay just as it is, because it won't, regardless of whether there is a stop at Crenshaw or not.
A Crenshaw station would be an incredible WASTE OF VITAL TRANSIT FUNDS. Would you rather have the subway extended further west, past the 405, or have a station at Crenshaw? Just look at the objective data: low population/employment density, low transit ridership (other than connections, which would be eliminated with a Crenshaw line that connects to the subway at Western, La Brea, Fairfax, or San Vicente/La Cienega), no MAJOR acitivity centers/attractions (that people from around the county and city visit frequently/daily), and an urban environment not conducive to walking. Why would you force a subway station on a low density single family neighborhood that doesn't even want it? Especially when those in the area who WILL ride the subway can easily walk a half mile more to the Western station (or, God forbid, take a bus for a half mile).
Subway stations should not be built without careful consideration of the surrounding urban environment and all the legal plans that dictate future growth in an area. Wilshire/Crenshaw will never be a major destination (wealthy homeowners will see to that) and that's not necessarily a bad thing. We should focus on what that $153 million can buy instead - like a station west of the 405 that would alleviate the infamous gridlock on all east-west streets that cross the 405 north of the 10.
Just remember the key to a successful rail line: connecting high density neighborhoods and major employment/activity centers! No transportation planner would ever suggest building a subway station at Wilshire/Crenshaw, especially when there are other places along the Wilshire corridor that are better suited for such a large scale investment.
Everybody here is an idiot because all they think of is today and not twenty years into the future like Japan.
Single family homes? Dumb. Twenty years later these homes will be bought out to have multimillion dollar condos built. Just look at Wilshire/Western and Wilshire/Vermont. It was a desolate place before (used to be Thrifty's there opposite to Wiltern, now it's a condo!!).
If you're smart, you'd buy homes on Wilshire/Crenshaw, support the subway station, and then sell it to some real estate magnate who wants to build a condo!!!
Wilshire and Western is "blighted."
If "Disgusted" is correct (which Disgusted is not) that there is something wrong ("blighted") with the recent low-scale development of Wilshire Boulevard between Highland and Wilton, why in the world would "the only ones who prefer it that way most likely live within two blocks north or south"? If there is a problem in or near those people's "backyards" (within a couple of blocks of their houses) you would think that those people would be the ones MOST anxious to see such a problem solved. But pleasing or displeasing these local residents, NIMBY or non-NIMBY, is NOT the real issue here. The issue here is what is best for the WHOLE COUNTY -- all of us who are paying the extra Measure R sales tax and want to see that money invested wisely. A wise investment of that money on the Purple Line is to continue extending the subway as far west as possible . . . and NOT to build another station just blocks east of the existing Western station. That's the main issue, not what some neighbors close by Wilshire and Crenshaw may want or not want. This extra subway station simply should NOT be added.
Huh? subway stations kill single family neighborhoods? Check back in 50 years and see how those three HPOZs are doing. My hunch is they won't have been bulldozed. Yes, there will be more development on Wilshire but that will be in addition to, not instead of, the surrounding single family neighborhoods. Houses can coexist with multi-family, and a few restaurants and shops would be an enhancement.
That stretch of Wilshire has looked blighted for 20 years and the only ones who prefer it that way most likely live within two blocks north or south. Adding a subway stop and some nearby development would improve the area and the city as a whole, despite the wishes of NIMBYs.
North of Wilshire refers to empty office buildings. That is because of the economy, NOT the lack of train service. There is empty Commercial property at Wilshire and Western, Wilshire and Vermont and at most of the other stations, and many the condos are vacant and in default. Therefore, the stations are not reliable engines for commercial success, though they do kill single family neighborhoods.
North of Wilshire is one of the best writers I have read lately. Great prose. He/she should go into journalism, maybe even internationally. However, the future that North of Wilshire describes is the future long planned for the Wilshire Center and the Miracle Mile Center . . . NOT the future for the low-density stretch in between.
As a previous commenter (Mr. Transit) noted, the City needs a variety of areas, even just north and south of Wilshire Boulevard. The areas should be sometimes quiet, sometimes dense, sometimes green and sometimes urban. The CENTERS are for dense and urban. The Park Mile (and environs) are for quiet and green. Vive la difference.
The Park Mile Specific Plan allows only very limited commercial development on Wilshire Boulevard, basically offices or multi-family buildings that generally are only three stories high and can only be built on the first 200 feet of land (two lots) just north and just south of Wilshire between Wilton and Highland. (That's because the next lots north and south generally are single-family or low-density residences.) Readers (including "North of Wilshire") may not realize it, but -- in the PAST 30 years -- most of the once-vacant Wilshire Boulevard Park Mile lots (except Metro's, of course) HAVE been built out with conforming projects that provide new places to work and new places to live in harmony with the low-density areas just north and south. And there is great existing bus transit on Wilshire!
Not only should the views of residents of the county be taken into account (perhaps they work in one of the mostly empty office buildings between Wilton and Highland?), the whole point of the growing rail network is to include these people. The economic impact of such a system is tremendous, and right now this section of Wilshire could almost be classified as blighted. Opponents of the stop argue this is a low-density single family residential area. The surrounding neighborhoods are classified as such, but Wilshire isn't.
Yes, it is important to note that the neighborhoods north and south of Wilshire are thankfully protected by HPOZs which will ensure the character of these neighborhoods is never destroyed. But what about all of the empty buildings-- and lots-- along Wilshire? This is a significant amount of valuable land that is currently dramatically underutilized.
The development plan that currently governs this stretch of Wilshire isn't going to last much longer. It has proven to be a jobs killer. Wilshire should be the main street of Los Angeles, with metro stops dotting the Boulevard all the way to the sea, bringing people to work and taking them home, SO THAT THEY DON'T NEED THEIR CARS. This would be a 2 mile long stretch in the MIDDLE of the city without a stop.
Politically connected developers will figure out how to build on Wilshire between Wilton and Highland. Don't we want to be able to mitigate their impact by reducing the additional cars that would result? Limiting parking is one effective way to do this.
Some dramatic decisions would need to be made by the surrounding neighborhoods-- demanding that developers REDUCE the amount of parking in this stretch of Wilshire, while creating zoned street parking to the north and south that is only available to homeowners. What would the effect of this be? Residents and employees riding the metro because it is the best option.
LA County has run out of land. Developers have already begun to turn their sights back in to the City. While development along this stretch of Wilshire can be shaped in order to not create Century City 2, development is going to happen. People need places to live, and most other cities in the country have figured out that people like to live and work near each other. Mixed use development, supported by a transit network, is the future of this stretch of Wilshire. Traffic, which has already engulfed the Westside, will continue to move east unless housing, work space, and transit are built in collaboration. Doing so here would create a vibrant stretch of Wilshire, and not bring all of the cars along with it.
The hardest part of listening to the few naysayers in the surrounding neighborhoods is witnessing their lack of vision. This isn't 1976 any more. Wilshire, and the city, will absolutely not look as it does today 30 years from now. Putting a stop at Crenshaw plans for this eventuality, and creates an alternative to those who will inevitably live and work in the area.
Just think, apartments on top of street cafes or a neighborhood grocery store and a metro stop on the corner. With limited or no parking provided. Narrowing Wilshire and widening the sidewalks-- because the volume of traffic has been reduced. The effect would be to create an urban oasis of single family homes, mixed use residential and commercial, all while depending less and less on the car. All of the naysayers in the surrounding homes would have a market or a place to get a sandwich in walking distance, thus reducing the strain on Larchmont and creating more options. This would increase property values. Homes, apartments, condos, retail, and restaurants can all exist together-- that's the whole idea of a city.
Or we could advocate that occupancy continue to be abysmal and that the sidewalks remain empty, and fight anyone who tries to do anything in this stretch of Wilshire. How long will that work?
Quantum leap on your part. I said nothing about the neighborhood except that it is within three HPOZs. Where do you live? Are you going to be riding the train to the Ebell regularly? I don't imagine that if I were to watch I would see many people getting off the bus and going to the Ebell or the church. What I would see is them taking another bus to get to Western or having to dashing across Wilshire to go west, where they really want to be. Crenshaw and Wilshire is NOT a destination, and a $153 million station is a waste.
My point was that it is the residents of the city as a whole whose opinions count, not just those in the neighborhood. Many people may wish to come to the neighborhood - to attend the Wilshire Ebell Theater or church, for example - that the residents might not consider. I have no idea where you live, but you seemed to be saying that the residents of the neighborhood should have more say than "computers" - presumably people all over the city.
Residents ride (or fail to ride) the subway, not computers, and residents PAY for stations, not computers. Therefore counting computers makes this poll irrelevant. I am for the subway extension, just not the pointless station.
You presume I live in the area - why?
In response to "Anonymous": The residents near Crenshaw and Wilshire are not the only ones whose opinions on this matter count, much as they might believe that to be the case. A public transportation system serves the city as a whole and must be examined in that context. If a few local feathers are ruffled in a quest to increase the greater good, so be it. There is the same issue in Beverly Hills about potential tunneling under houses.
None of us would like to live next to (or over!) a construction site for the decades that it apparently will for this subway to get built. But we have to look at the bigger picture. "Counting computers, not residents" is completely appropriate. What's not appropriate is using this small sample to make multi-million dollar decisions. Whatever the outcome, it's not terribly relevant.
Putting a station at Crenshaw is a pointless waste of money - it puts three stations 1/2 mile apart, against all common sense has no commercial hub, disrupts three contiguous HPOZs, provides for no parking for park-and-ride patrons. If they aren't riding the bus now, they won't be riding the train later - at least not from Crenshaw and Wilshire.
I would also like to comment that this poll is bogus - it is counting computers, not residents. If all but one of the comments is negative, then the numbers don't add up. If this ad hoc "lying with numbers" bears any weight on the expenditure of $153 million, then it's no wonder that we are in the condition we're in.
As many of the "pro" people argue, connectivity and creating a truly useful transportation system is of utmost importance. But a Crenshaw station wouldn't really increase connectivity because there's no north/south access there. Even a northward extension of the Crenshaw line would probably connect at La Brea, San Vicente or even Western, because that's where other lines will be. A Crenshaw station would be handy for the relatively small number of residents near Wilshire & Crenshaw, but it's not otherwise a logical choice. Also, preservation of thriving single-family neighborhoods is vital for the city and its livability. Development at or near a Crenshaw station, now forbidden or highly restricted by the Park Mile Specific Plan, would be the death of that historic, lovely oasis (and, no, I don't live there). Blanket high-density, without regard to history, diversity of housing (at both ends of the affordability spectrum), culture and lifestyle, can be fatal to the urban environment.
The previous three comments have most of the good arguments against trying to create a hub at Wilshire/Crenshaw where none is needed. And that is the point: Rail stations work best when they can be a hub to multiple bus services. Wilshire/Western is already such a hub, including being the north terminal for the Crenshaw Rapid Line 710. And with 710 already at that hub, there is little left to "hub" at a proposed Crenshaw station. Wilshire Rapid Line 720 and local Line 20? Already serve Wilshire/Western. Local Line 210 on Vine-Rossmore-Crenshaw? A minor reroute to/from Wilshire/Western solves that ... IF there is a need (and don't you think that need would have surfaced in the decade-plus Wilshire/Western Station has existed, if there really was one?). Let's not waste money on a station that would serve a relative handful of people, all of whom can already get to a Purple Line station easily already.
Mr. Transit and Joel have it right. Adding a Station at Wilshire and Crenshaw makes no sense. There already is a station (at Western) a few blocks away (and very close to the denser areas east of Bronson Avenue). By contrast, the area surrounding Wilshire and Crenshaw is primarily low-density single-family residential, served well now by half-a-dozen bus lines. And Metro's study (the PowerPoint presentation to which Steve Hymon links) actually says that, by NOT adding a Wilshire-Crenshaw station, the full subway line loses only about 1,300 riders (not 4,000). But the critical benefit of not wasting the scarce dollars for so few passengers at Wilshire-Crenshaw is that the money can be used to help extend the Purple Line under the 405 to the Veterans Administration property adjoining Brentwood.
A station at this location makes no sense. Western and La Brea are better transfer locations for Crenshaw buses (and the future Crenshaw rail line). There are no destinations nearby, and the area has fairly low residential density too.
If stations were free, I would say sure. But this station will cost a sixth of a billion dollars. For 4k daily riders? Not worth it.
The Park MIle and Crenshaw are never going to be a transit hub, nor should they be. What makes Los Angeles beautiful is the rhythm, sometimes quiet, sometimes dense, sometimes green and sometimes urban. This area should be allowed to evolve as an oasis in the city, a neighborhood where a different ideas exists alongside different ideas. Besides, there will still be buses on Wilshire after the Purple Line, in fact, local service along this street will probably be improved once the need for all the BRTs is obviated. Riding a local bus at maximum 3/4 of a mile should not be such a big deal.
Asking this question in the absence of context is like asking people if people should receive decent health care. Yes, but at what costs? If there are no drawbacks, if this is just free money falling out of the sky, why don't we just use it to give everyone rocket packs that let us zoom around wherever we want to go?
IF YOU REALLY REALLY WANT TO INCREASE RIDERSHIP TAKE OUT CARPOOL LANES AND RUN RAIL LINES TRAVELING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FREEWAY ON THE 405FWY FROM SYLMAR TO 405 FWY ORANGE COUNTY AS WELL 5FWY SYLMAR TO 5 FWY ANAHEIM 101FWY CALABASAS TO DOWNTOWN LA. 10 FWY DOWNTOWN LA TO ONATRIO AIRPORT. THAT WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING.
There is no reason why there shouldn't. Anything to reduce congestion. More people would use public transport if available.