Feasibility Study on Slauson Corridor Rail-to-River Project Takes Another Step Forward

The Slauson corridor that runs through South L.A. is not as empty as we imagine. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog
The Slauson corridor that runs through South L.A. is not as empty as we imagine. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

How are you going to get community input?

It was a question asked by one of the few community members who had shown up to Metro’s Rail to River meeting last week on the potential conversion of 8.3 miles of the rail right-of-way along Slauson Ave. into an active transportation corridor.

He and a friend were looking at one of the boards illustrating the neighborhoods the corridor ran through and speaking with Ryan Johnson, a planner with the Alta Planning & Design team working on the feasibility study for the project.

I told him that was a good question.

I had heard from several people involved in the project that Metro had been reluctant to do too much community engagement at this point because they are still studying the feasibility of the project. Getting the community excited about a project they are not sure they can bring to fruition hadn’t seemed prudent.

The bike and pedestrian paths would run along the Harbor Subdivision tracks, starting just north of Vernon, at Washington, heading south parallel to Santa Fe, heading west at Slauson, and taking a turn southward near Western. It would end at the Crenshaw Line stop at Florence. (map taken from 2008 Harbor Division study)
The bike and pedestrian paths would run along the Harbor Subdivision tracks, starting just north of Vernon, at Washington, heading south parallel to Santa Fe, heading west at Slauson, and taking a turn southward near Western. It would end at the Crenshaw Line stop at Florence. It could also extend along Randolph (where the path turns north) southwest toward the river. (Map taken from 2008 Harbor Division study)

And while that makes sense, to a degree, if feasibility involves projections of who will use the space and how, knowing how residents currently use the space, their concerns, their aspirations for it, and insight into elements that would entice them to use it would seem important.

Their input would also matter with regard to routes. With regard to the question of whether Metro should invest first in extending the Slauson path along Randoph St. to the river or follow it north toward downtown and Vernon, for example, locals who work in either of those areas might have very different perspective than those who were looking to use the bike facilities for recreation.

With that in mind, I told the young man and his friend, I had spent the weekend prior to the meeting engaging vendors and other folks along the corridor about the meeting and stuffing flyers into their hands.

The neighbors — all of whom unequivocally viewed Slauson as a dangerous, largely inaccessible, and unfriendly space — had been thrilled to hear about the potential for a park-like zone.

All of the vendors remembered me from when I had interviewed them a few months ago and were eager for updates. As before, they were interested in the potential conversion of the space, but apprehensive about what it might mean for them. Most lived in the area and had been vending there on the weekend for several years. They did it because they needed the income. But, they also felt that their presence helped make the area safer — without them, there are few eyes with vested interests in the area looking out onto a street dominated by industrial structures.

Despite their concerns, they were reluctant to commit to attending.

Proclaiming their presence, many felt, might bring unwanted attention and result in their being shut down. Back on November 6th of last year, Councilmembers Jose Huizar and Curren Price introduced a motion asking for the City Council to draft a report and a proposal for the legalization of street vending within 90 days. The Council has yet to make a move in that direction, and the vendors are aware that their presence remains precarious.

I could go to the meeting, the vendor of miscellaneous tools and appliances set up at the corner of Main St. had affirmed in Spanish, but I am a little afraid. I have a permit to vend and I pay taxes — I always have — but I am afraid to speak up.

Why don’t you just come to listen, so you will know what’s going on? I asked. If you have any questions, I can ask them for you so you won’t have to worry.

I could go, he repeated, nodding and folding up the flyers and putting them in his pocket. I will think about it.

He didn’t show up, unfortunately.

Nor did the others.

Even so, I was genuinely over the moon to see that Metro had included both the acknowledgement of the community’s interest in things like having space for vendors or for recreation (i.e. fitness equipment) and the fact that the space was more likely to be regularly used by pedestrians (who would likely be locals) than cyclists in their presentation.

A screenshot of how the right-of-way might be transformed. Source:
A screenshot of how the right-of-way might be transformed. Click to enlarge/for better resolution. Source: Metro

Also new and exciting was the discussion of the removal of the train tracks in order to create space for the bike and pedestrian paths.

They would have to go anyways, attendees were told, because any future light rail project would use different tracks, rendering the existing tracks obsolete.

While that made sense, at the last meeting, it hadn’t been made completely clear (at least not to me and a few of the other attendees) that the existing tracks would be removed.

The recognition of community needs and the added space that would now be available along whatever bike/ped paths were installed made me optimistic for the possibility of more community-specific interventions and innovative partnerships along the route.

I’m not sure that means that they’ll be able to put in the fish pond and other water features I saw a woman request on one of the boards, but one can always dream, I suppose.

The draft plan should be finalized in April, according to planners. For some of the documents presented for discussion on the project, please click here.

 

6 thoughts on Feasibility Study on Slauson Corridor Rail-to-River Project Takes Another Step Forward

  1. Is it really wise to be taking away potential light rail corridors, especially in under-served communities? Maybe a combination light rail + ‘whole streets’ makeover would better serve this area? It also seems like this corridor could provide one seat rides from downtown to LAX, and from these areas to many employment centers all over the county.

    Just a thought.

  2. This corridor has been studied, but it hasn’t been included in short-to-medium-term projects. Metro is focusing more on some other corridors, which makes sense since this one would have to involve cutting service on the Crenshaw corridor that they are just getting started with.

    Since it’s likely to be at least 10 years before any light rail construction would happen here, it makes sense to try to get at least 10 good years out of the space, especially if they’re going to have to replace the tracks anyway.

  3. I was thinking the same thing, but just realized (a few minutes ago, actually) that as long as Metro retains the right-of-way, it could still leave above- and below-grade rail options available to us in the future with less-than-typical disruption to the street-level green space.

  4. Metro has studied this and service from LAX to Downtown is not cost effective and scores the lowest on environmental justice measures, because of the high speeds through populated areas. If there were any future rail system, due to the number of busy streets it would need to be grade separated. I fully support conversion of the corridor into something that can provide benefit for the community now, not many years from now.

  5. Is anyone in the community supporting having light rail? I know some activists who want this R-O-W saved for a rail link of LAX and Downtown L.A. (which they see as endangered by the Crenshaw line using part of the right-of-way near the airport). But I don’t see anyone in an organized fashion promoting rail.

  6. Feasibility study is valuable only when its processed by an industry professional.

    Good Article. Feasibility study is an essential tool, when conducting a new business . But its really sensitive to many factors. We need to answer questions such as : Is there a demand for this kind of business ? What are our biggest competitors ? Am i eligible to compete ? Feasibility study must contain in depth analysis, which evaluates potential risk factors.

    Feasibility study is an essential tool and every specific industry and project requires a different methodology to ascertain feasiblity.

    Wert-Berater, Inc. provides feasibility studies worlwide for all types of
    projects. We have numerous industry professionals and milions invested in
    information, thus we are able to cover all NAICS industries !

    For more information visit our website: http://wert-berater.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

A map of the Rail-to-River bike and pedestrian path planned for the Slauson corridor in South and Southeast Los Angeles. Source: Metro

Rail-to-River Route Through Huntington Park, Bell Emerges as Best Candidate; Community Meeting December 8

|
Spoiler alert: of the four options Metro is considering, the Randolph Street option (B4) has ranked the highest. Not only would it help connect residents to more schools and other important community destinations, it would be able to provide residents with the safest way to reach those destinations. Best of all, it would add over four miles to the bike/pedestrian path and connect users to the river and the existing bike path there.