Since we launched the Slauson Avenue survey, hundreds of you have responded. You have made a difference by voting for your preferred improvement to the corridor. Your opinion matters – as do your questions — so we are encouraging you to contribute your comments and questions by joining the conversation below. There may be a lag time between your submission and their appearance below, but all comments that do not contain profanity will be published. We have also compiled frequently asked questions along with responses below.
Please join us for the Slauson Ave Public Improvements Taskforce Meeting on February 22nd at 6:30PM at our Exposition Park Office. This meeting will provide an opportunity to further review the streetscape options and discuss next steps.
To download the meeting flyer, click here.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Slauson Survey (FAQ)
1. How much will on-line voting influence the final decision?
The results will be given significant consideration by the Supervisor’s office and the Department of Public Works. The online voting process created a meaningful opportunity to better understand the sentiments of stakeholders in the Slauson Corridor, however, a final decision will not be made until after the follow-up community meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 22 at the Exposition Park Office.
2. When will the voting process end?
Online voting will end at 5 p.m. on Friday, February 10, 2012.
3. How do you know that people aren’t voting more than once?
Security procedures are in place that limit voting to one response per computer. While no system is completely secure, it is our goal to deter multiple votes. Additionally, we have enabled comments on the survey in order to capture not just voters’ preferences, but the reasoning and thinking behind residents’ choices.
4. What is the timeline for this process?
A streetscape design will be selected in February 2012, and the level of environmental analysis and the length of design and construction process will be based on which proposal is selected. A timeline for implementation will be developed by May 2012.
5. Is Trader Joe’s seriously interested in having a store on Slauson Ave?
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, as well as leadership from the Community Development Commission, has met with upper level management at Trader Joe’s, and negotiations are ongoing. The Supervisor, however, is committed to exploring all options to attract a quality grocer to the Slauson Corridor.
6. When will the Commercial Development Taskforce meet?
The Supervisor is engaging commercial business owners on the Slauson Corridor in discussions regarding their commitments and interest in revitalizing the corridor. Following these initial meetings, the Commercial Development Taskforce will be convened, and we expect it will meet with business owners this summer.
7. When will the Branding Taskforce meet?
The Branding Taskforce will be convened following the selection of a streetscape proposal, so that branding opportunities will be coordinated with the planned improvements.
8. When will the next Public Improvement taskforce meeting take place?
The next meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 22, at the Exposition Park Office, which is located at 700 Exposition Park Drive, Los Angeles.
Download FAQ (as a PDF document)
On November 28th, 2011, representatives of the View Park, Windsor Hills and Ladera Heights communities joined forces at the Public Improvements Taskforce meeting to discuss strategies to improve the livability, accessibility and walkability of the Slauson Ave corridor. Strategies discussed included widening side walks, adding bike lanes, increasing landscaping within the medians and the pedestrian right of way, as well as reducing traffic lanes. Please review the 6 different options, along with their “pro’s” and “con’s”, and let us know which strategy you like best.
Removal of one lane of traffic in each direction. Adds a class III bicycle route, parallel parking, landscaping, raised median, and widens sidewalks. Provides an 11-foot sidewalk, 8 foot parallel parking lane, 14-foot outside lane signed for a bicycle route, and an 11-foot inside lane for each direction, and a 12-foot raised median.
PROS:
CONS:
Maintains existing traffic lanes and sidewalks. Adds a Class III bicycle route, landscaping, and raised median. Provides an 8-foot sidewalk, 14-foot outside peak period travel lane signed for a bicycle route, 11-foot middle lane, and an 11-foot inside lane for each direction, and a 12-foot raised median.
PROS:
CONS:
Maintains existing traffic lanes. Adds landscaping, raised median, and widens sidewalks. Provides an 11-foot sidewalk, 13-foot outside peak period travel lane, 10-foot middle lane, and an 11-foot inside lane for each direction, and a 10-foot raised median.
PROS:
CONS:
Removal of two lanes of traffic in each direction. Adds parallel parking, Class II bicycle lanes, raised medians, landscaping, and widens sidewalks. Provides a 20-foot sidewalk, 8-foot parallel parking lane, 5-foot class II bicycle lane, and a 12-foot traffic lane for each direction, and a 10-foot raised median.
PROS:
CONS:
Option D – Alternative 2
Removes two lanes of traffic. Adds 45-degree diagonal parking, landscaping, and a raised median. Provides an 8-foot sidewalk, 15-foot diagonal parking, 10-foot backup bay, and a 12-foot travel lane for each direction, and a 10-foot raised median.
PROS:
CONS:
Option E
Maintains existing traffic lanes. Adds landscaping, raised median, and widens sidewalk on south side only. Provides an 8-foot sidewalk, 14-foot outside peak period travel lane, 11-foot middle lane, and an 12-foot inside lane on the north side. Provides a 11-foot sidewalk, 13-foot outside peak period traffic lane, 10-foot middle lane, and an 11-foot inside lane on the south side. Also provides a 10-foot raised median.
PROS:
CONS:
Also, check our community survey that seeks to identify what future uses along Slauson are most supported by the surrounding residents. Click here to take the community survey.
Click here to see the survey results.
Charles Shickley Jan 25 2012 - 12:23 pm
I live in View Park and take Slauson every day to go work so I understand the frustration with traffic of some of the people at the meeting. Although the traffic is bad at rush hour, for the long term good of our community we need to change this rather dangerous high traffic corridor into a town center. Los Angeles transportation has to change in the coming decades from the car model and long commutes to more telecommuting, mass transportation and development of mixed use areas where people can live, work and shop without having to drive. That is the only way Los Angeles is going to survive the approaching carmageddon of just too many cars on the road. Some people would make the argument that we already have too many cars here. The Slauson corridor project brings grocery shopping and other services closer to our residential communities. It is a move in the right direction for the our quality of life and it sets an example for the rest of Los Angeles to follow to improve our standard of living for an aging population and for the benefit of our children.
Doug Brzescinski Jan 28 2012 - 11:42 am
I agree with you, Mr. Shickley and like Option D-1 the best for these reasons.
I drive Slauson every morning during peak traffic hours and the same when I return home and am no fan of traffic. BUT, for the long term health of the community and the opportunity for great shopping and dining choices close to home, I would happily find alternatives. So, I hope the County will explore new and creative ways to deal with traffic with an eye to the future. Traffic will also need to be slowed in the shopping sections of Slauson anyway to avoid cars speeding through intersections with shoppers.
I do NOT like Options like B that do not give us the significant visual and other improvements that the community deserves. D-1 has my vote.
Kenneth R. Morris, (COL retired) Jan 26 2012 - 12:35 pm
As a View Park resident, I fully support the need to upgrade Slauson Avenue as an enhancement to our area, and encourage more wholesome and upscale businesses like the redevelopment we see in similar areas like Culver City and Santa Monica. I know we have the ability and the residents who would support this type of improvement. I am excited and applaud Supervisor Ridley Thomas for his visionary leadership and support of our community.
Sandra Belle Jan 26 2012 - 4:33 pm
Option B makes the most sense. Elimination of a traffic lane would increase congestion, both on Slauson, Centinella and Fairview, which is residential. With Option B providing a bike lane. some motorist will be encouraged to ride their cycles instead of driving their cars. And forget about car pooling. It seems Los Angelenos love driving solo.
Doug Brzescinski Jan 28 2012 - 12:11 pm
Sandra,
Option B doesn’t make it safer for those who want to WALK and if we have shopping, we will have more walkers. B also doesn’t give us a significant visual improvement on Slauson. Why would we go through the sacrifice of redevelopment for less?
I drive Slauson every day during peak traffic hours and also when I go to Culver City or the Marina because I shop at Trader Joes and places near TG. We need a much bigger change than B offers and a truly wonderful town center left for those who come after we are gone.
D-1 is the choice looking to the future. I have faith that the county can find ways to mitigate traffic concerns on Slauson and our residential streets if we provide the support to explore solutions.
June Cigar Jan 27 2012 - 7:27 pm
I have lived here in this great city for fiftyfour years and I have witness a big change in this city demographics cultures and comunity events and services. The orginal people that have worked so hard to service at risk youth and families in south centeral, east Los Angeles,from San Pedero where my parents worked so hard to provide for families and neighbors. Since 1957 to now i have lived and watched other minorities come to this city theive and get education homes but people who have payed their dues have the hardest time getting any services or help.
Carole Cooley Jan 29 2012 - 1:37 pm
I prefer D-1. There are many people who walk on Slauson and many are elderly and wider sidewalks and less traffic would be a blessing. Less traffic would eliminate some of the noise for those resident who live on Slauson and on the surrounding streets. It’s important to bring grocery shopping and other services to our residential community. Let trash and less dust will be a beneficial health plan. I believe in the long run this will help our community in the future so we should prepare today. I travel on Motor Aves through the Cheviot Hills area to get to Century City and there is only one lane on either side and this has not caused a traffic problem. As a matter of fact it slowed the traffic down. The resident in that area found it a welcome change and we here on the Slauson Avenue Corridor will too.
Carol Davis Jan 29 2012 - 6:10 pm
I live off Fairfax between Stocker and Slauson. I cannot tell you how many times I have almost been hit by drivers driving tooooo fast heading north on Fairfax. To the planners, I believe in what you are proposing, but before the lanes are removed from Slauson, please, please deal with drivers already driving excessively toooo fast on Fairfax.
June (Windsor Hills) Jan 30 2012 - 8:23 pm
I like Plan D-1. We desperately need a grocery store in this area. One lane each way on Slauson will make drivers take another route. Therefore, there will be less traffic on Slauson which is a blessing. Thanks to Supervisor Ridley-Thomas for this proposal. Enhancement of this community is overdue.
Glenn - Windsor Hills Jan 31 2012 - 6:24 am
Improving the Slauson corridor is a great idea. The plan chosen should not cause traffic to divert onto our residential streets. Please do not create a bottleneck. We should pick the plan with off-peak parking and maintain the existing lanes.
There is a large parking lot on the north side of Slauson between Angeles Vista and Overhill. It should be included in any planned development of Slauson.
Sir Chris Okpala Jan 31 2012 - 10:52 am
I prefer Option C. Yes, we need grocery stores but wil increase traffic instead of reducing it. Option C will provide necessary needed improvement to Slauson, it is long overdue. Thanks to Supervisor Ridley-Thomas and his Staffs for focusing on the communitie.
Elissa Jackson Feb 2 2012 - 5:21 am
I look forward to a beautified Slauson Avenue that will encourage residents to support the local businesses in our community. Yes for larger sidewalks and more trees!!!
Gary Gless Feb 3 2012 - 8:31 pm
Option D-1 seems to be the best to doing am actual revitalization of the area. If we do not ask for the most we will defiantly get the bare minimum. We deserve to have the best. One flaw is we need to add roundabouts at all the intersections to make this work. They keep traffic flowing that in turn reduces noise, pollution and traffic congestion but most of all reduces fatal or serious accidents. Roundabouts have been used thru out California and the World.
Let’s do it right and implement what other cities have learned in redevelopment. I look forward to seeing this at the next workshop.
Doug Brzescinski Feb 5 2012 - 3:03 pm
Gary Gless – Thank you for bringing up the roundabouts; it is a great idea. I hope the county will explore them as part of the plan. I would hate to see us “settle” for minimum improvements until we have thoroughly explored possible options to get much more. We’ve waited 30 years to see redevelopment and deserve the best.
David & Denise Feb 4 2012 - 5:37 pm
We agree with Glen! We too, are long time residents of the area and welcome both the retail businesses and the aesthetic improvements to Slauson Ave. However, reduction in traffic lanes at this time only increases the risk of more congestion and back-up into surrounding areas. In addition, the inclusion of bike lanes on Slauson adds to this congestion and increases the risk of peak period accidents. Parking, particularly at peak periods, should be in parking lots or structures off the main thru-way. Option D-2 is of significant concern both from a congestion and potential accidents point of view. For these reasons we prefer option C!
David & Denise
Sir Chris Okpala Feb 6 2012 - 12:27 pm
I am totolly in support to David and Denise reasoning. Option C is the only reasonable and workable option. All others will increase traffic and cause more accidents.
Craig Brown Feb 5 2012 - 10:02 pm
It is very difficult coming into or leaving out of the neighborhood north and south of Slauon (west of La Cienega) during peak traffic hours and we only have two streets into our neighborhoods. It is unfortunbate that our thoroughfares – such as La Cienega (north and south of Slauson) cannot accomodate the traffic of our generation and to cut away a car lane on Slauson would, in my opinion magnify, the alredy frustrating driving conditions, therfore, I choose option “C”.
Kim (Windsor Hills) Feb 6 2012 - 12:54 am
The last thing we need is to eliminate traffic lanes on Slauson – the only efficient and quickest route to the 90 / 405 freeways. Where would traffic go? Moving traffic to Fairview, Centinela, etc., would create the nastiest bottleneck and create a stressful and inconvenient commute for our community. What the big issue here is that we just need to rehabilitate the properties on this stretch of Slauson, get better businesses in and improve landscaping. Just please do not eliminate traffic lanes!
Nancy Day Feb 6 2012 - 9:11 am
I live in Ladera Heights. I prefer Options B and C because they will retain the capacity needed to avoid adversely impacting traffic flow on Slauson. From LaBrea Avenue to Sepulveda Blvd., peak hour traffic is already intolerable, and negatively impacts the quality of life in our community. I am therefore opposed to any plan that would eliminate any existing traffic lanes (plans A, D-1 and D-1).
A Class III bicycle lane (not a dedicated bicycle lane but one that is shared with autos) would be an acceptable compromise. However, when you consult with cyclists you will find that the heavy traffic flow on Slauson makes such an option undesirable due to the very high risk for the cyclists.
I prefer Plan C because it maintains 3 traffic lanes in both directions, with restricted parking provided in the curbside lanes during peak traffic periods. Plan B also maintains three traffic lanes but includes the Class III bicycle designation which I believe is unwise given the extreme traffic on Slauson.
I want to encourage County leadership to totally rethink the plan to revitalize the commercial area between Angeles Vista and LaBrea Avenue. The big challenge is to erase the existing development and design a plan that will not impair traffic flow on Slauson (or surrounding communities) but will provide a beautiful and much needed commercial space with offstreet parking for visitors. Look at reversing the plan so that the back side of the commercial buildings abut Slauson and the entrances are accessed from ample off-street parking. For example, look at the commercial development on Sepulveda Blvd. between Manchester and LaTijera.
Finally, I want to encourage the County to revise its landscaping criteria applicable to all new or revitalized landscaping projects. We live in a desert and water is a scarce resource. All future plantings should be limited to xeriscape or low water use plants and trees. If you decide to go forward with the planted median, please make it an example for the entire County to follow!
Thank you for considering my opinions.
Noreen Clark Feb 6 2012 - 9:12 am
I would rather jump into a pit of rattle snakes than try to ride a bike on Slauson. The drivers are angry and still using cell phones all the time. I love to ride my bike, but this would not be safe and is not the answer to congestion in our area. Taking away any traffic lanes is completely out of the question. I can hardly get home during peak traffic hours even though I’m a few blocks away from my turn off. Please don’t even consider bike lanes as a solution to traffic in Ladera Heights.
Nicole Vargas Feb 6 2012 - 2:46 pm
You can’t have a pretty, safe shopping area with cars speeding through when people are walking and how do you widen sidewalks without losing lanes? The only way to reduce the accidents and crashes for all types of users is to reduce the capacity for the car traffic and slow it down – discourage vehicles from speeding through the intersections.
So seems like we have to make a choice between keeping Slauson for the car traffic or transforming Slauson so it’s beautiful and people can walk and shop. If I drive in nice shopping streets anywhere, I know ahead of time that there will be slow traffic going through certain streches. So why can’t people just get used to slower traffic on Slauson as the trade off for the benefit of really great shopping?
I am driving Slauson out of the area all the time because I don’t have a choice within walking distance to do what I need. Maybe if more are able to walk or ride bikes or not needing to shop someplace else, we won’t have as much car traffic.
M. Hayashi Feb 8 2012 - 10:34 am
None of the above. Waste of money, and will create traffic nightmare during construction.
No Raised median. No bike lane. Wider sidewalks not necessary.
“Maybe” a reversible middle lane, to add a lane of traffic on busiest side, during rush hour.
Money could be better spent improving traffic around La Tijera Middle school, AND Fairview/La Cienega intersection:
1) Left turn from WB Fairview onto SB La Cienega/to right turn on La Tijera
2) Left turn into Ladera Center from WB Fairview during rush hour (or enforce restrictions)
3) Right turn from Ladera Center to EB Fairview during rush hour (or enforce Stop sign)
I believe this is 2nd district area, too!
Noreen Clark Feb 8 2012 - 10:40 am
I do so totally agree with M. Hayasi. No bike lanes, none of the mentioned changes! They are a waste of $ and time.
M. Hayashi Feb 8 2012 - 1:28 pm
Thanks Ms. Clark.
Total waste of time and money. Traffic is bad enough with the “delay” in La Cienega/Slauson ramp project. This project would mean additional delays in traffic flow.
Bike lanes would be dangerous to bike riders, as drivers already drive like maniacs on Slauson already. Someone will get killed.
Raised median would waste space for additional lane of traffic, and also require maintenance (more money). It will end up a weed infested median.
Use money to Fix Faiview/La Cienega. Remove the ugly, vacant Gas Station, and improve La Tijera/La Cienega/Fairview/Centinela interchange.
Zelda Davis Feb 8 2012 - 12:01 pm
I agree!!!
I would also like to see a solution to the speeders that travel North and South bound on Fairfax between Slauson and Stocker. Speed dots….”not bumps” forcing folks to slow down inbetween the Home Depot entrance off Fairfax and the office complex. Widen the street so that there is a true left turn lane going into the office complex off Fairfax and down the hill into the residential area on 57th.
thanks for your consideration.
The Smiths in Windsor Hills Feb 8 2012 - 12:48 pm
Can’t believe I am reading people in Ladera suggest it is a waste of time and money to invest in Slauson and time and money would be better spent near them.
We can only hope the powers that be will ignore these suggestions for Windsor Hills has been waiting too long for a grocery store and a nice shopping area. I hope we can move in the direction of something like D-1 and I believe the people in Ladera would also greatly benefit, even if they don’t see that now.
Michael Ellis Feb 10 2012 - 7:11 am
After reading the previous comments regarding which of the options will best serve our community I sense a brewing conflict between View Park and Ladera Heights. We, as a conjoined communities, should stay focused on the single most impactful element at issue……TRAFFIC! Both communities are affected by the daily congestion along the Slauson Ave. corridor. Any proposal to eliminate any traffic lanes and possibly further add to the congestion is detrimental to both communities. I feel Option C is a viable compromise that offers aesthetic enhancement to the area with minimal impact on traffic flow.
Stuart Magruder Mar 2 2012 - 11:20 am
Option B makes the most sense from my point of view. I live just south of the area covered by this proposal. Unfortunately, wider sidewalk will do little to revive the moribund retail along this stretch of Slauson – until the retail / commercial tenants upgrade and become appealing to the public as a destination and a place to spend money, the strip will remain underutilized. Removing a lane of traffic in each direction as some of the options do, would be a serious mistake. Alternate mass transit options do not exist along this corridor; until they do reducing the capacity of Slauson would cause significantly worse traffic and force more traffic onto parallel residential side streets.