UPDATED: Streetscape options for Slauson Avenue

Click here to download a status report from September 2012.

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 has mattered – as have your questions. In response to your feedback, the Department of Public Works is moving forward with an environmental impact report to analyze five streetscape options. They are currently analyzing the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. These updated proposals reflect your feedback.

Before a final option is selected, there will be additional opportunities for your input.  Below are the updated options:


Two travel lanes with a Class II bike route, 12 foot sidewalk, and dedicated parking.

Two travel lanes, 16-foot sidewalk, and dedicated parking.


Three travel lanes with a Class III bike route, 8-foot sidewalk (same as existing), and parking during off-peak hours.


Three travel lanes, 12-foot sidewalk, and parking during off-peak hours.

One travel lane with a Class II bike lane, 20-foot sidewalk, and dedicated parking.

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.

Also, view this 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.

 


Comments (35)
  • Avatar

    Charles Shickley Jan 25 2012 - 12:23 pm Reply

    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.

    • Avatar

      Doug Brzescinski Jan 28 2012 - 11:42 am Reply

      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.

  • Avatar

    Kenneth R. Morris, (COL retired) Jan 26 2012 - 12:35 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Sandra Belle Jan 26 2012 - 4:33 pm Reply

    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.

    • Avatar

      Doug Brzescinski Jan 28 2012 - 12:11 pm Reply

      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.

  • Avatar

    June Cigar Jan 27 2012 - 7:27 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Carole Cooley Jan 29 2012 - 1:37 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Carol Davis Jan 29 2012 - 6:10 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    June (Windsor Hills) Jan 30 2012 - 8:23 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Glenn - Windsor Hills Jan 31 2012 - 6:24 am Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Sir Chris Okpala Jan 31 2012 - 10:52 am Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Elissa Jackson Feb 2 2012 - 5:21 am Reply

    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!!!

  • Avatar

    Gary Gless Feb 3 2012 - 8:31 pm Reply

    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.

    • Avatar

      Doug Brzescinski Feb 5 2012 - 3:03 pm Reply

      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.

  • Avatar

    David & Denise Feb 4 2012 - 5:37 pm Reply

    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

    • Avatar

      Sir Chris Okpala Feb 6 2012 - 12:27 pm Reply

      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.

  • Avatar

    Craig Brown Feb 5 2012 - 10:02 pm Reply

    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”.

  • Avatar

    Kim (Windsor Hills) Feb 6 2012 - 12:54 am Reply

    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!

  • Avatar

    Nancy Day Feb 6 2012 - 9:11 am Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Noreen Clark Feb 6 2012 - 9:12 am Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Nicole Vargas Feb 6 2012 - 2:46 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    M. Hayashi Feb 8 2012 - 10:34 am Reply

    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!

    • Avatar

      Noreen Clark Feb 8 2012 - 10:40 am Reply

      I do so totally agree with M. Hayasi. No bike lanes, none of the mentioned changes! They are a waste of $ and time.

      • Avatar

        M. Hayashi Feb 8 2012 - 1:28 pm Reply

        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.

    • Avatar

      Zelda Davis Feb 8 2012 - 12:01 pm Reply

      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.

  • Avatar

    The Smiths in Windsor Hills Feb 8 2012 - 12:48 pm Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Michael Ellis Feb 10 2012 - 7:11 am Reply

    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.

  • Avatar

    Jon Oct 9 2012 - 11:20 am Reply

    I think moving heavy traffic from heavily populated areas (like a downtown district) is the best move here. Open up the existing roads to foot traffic and bicycles, and the surrounding local businesses will benefit.

  • Avatar

    Dix-Sept Nov 6 2012 - 7:37 pm Reply

    Option B makes the most sense. Getting rid of 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 bicycles instead of driving their cars. And forget about car pooling. It seems Los Angelenos love driving solo.

  • Avatar

    Ambrose Celestin Nov 27 2012 - 2:45 am Reply

    I prefer Option C because it can solve traffic issues and also promote aesthetic betterment of the community. On a side note, I love the graphic designs. Thanks!

  • Avatar

    Mark Apr 14 2013 - 8:55 am Reply

    Would love B-1 personally. Traffic is always my biggest issue in the area, and any improvements in that regard would be great!

  • Avatar

    David Nov 9 2013 - 4:04 am Reply

    A 20-foot sidewalk. No question. Anything less is a testament vision-less mediocrity and the 8-foot sidewalk is insulting.

    LA is on the precipice of reinventing itself as a progressive iconic city. Don’t compromise LA’s posterity. From now on, only the best for the city.

    David

  • Avatar

    Nicole Jan 15 2014 - 7:48 pm Reply

    Just checking back and shocked to see the option that got the most votes – D-1 has been removed. Why? And if you combine all the options that widen the sidewalk, it is overwhelmingly clear that most residents support this over leaving the sidewalk at 8 feet. As David says above, the 8′ sidewalk is insulting. The county needs to explain WHO decided to go that route and why did they bother to poll the community if they ignore us? Even more insulting.

  • Avatar

    Danny Yels Jan 26 2014 - 4:12 pm Reply

    I see the problem here and I really dislike the traffic that goes through this area all the time. Yet I think in the end of the day, Option B is probably the best option out of all of them.

  • Avatar

    Fred Patrick Apr 18 2014 - 8:27 am Reply

    Street scape option B is one of the best option because A ideologically does not sole the traffic problem.

    used bmw x3

Leave a reply
Add Comment Register



Name (required)

Website