Board to consider changing names of six Metro stations

One of the items that the Metro Board of Directors will consider at their meeting on Thursday involves changing the names of six rail/bus stations to better reflect the geography of the area.

The changes, most of which came at the request of various people:

A. (Blue Line and Green Line) “Imperial/Wilmington/Rosa Parks” to “Willowbrook/Rosa Parks.”

B. (Blue Line) “103rd Street/Kenneth Hahn” to “103rd St/Watts Towers/Kenneth Hahn.”

C. (Green Line) “Vermont Av/I-105″ to “Vermont Av/Athens.”

D. (Green Line) “Hawthorne Bl/I-105″ to “Hawthorne Bl/Lennox.”

E. (Expo Line) “Venice/Robertson” to “Culver City.”

F. (Silver Line) “Artesia Transit Center” to “Harbor/Gateway Transit Center.”

G. (Blue Line) “Transit Mall” to “Long Beach Civic Center.”

Here’s a staff report on the issue. The idea is to try to accommodate the requests for changes from the community and public officials that have been made over the years.

As for expense, the cost for changing each station could range from $115,000 to $582,000 depending on the size of the station and the work involved, staff say.

30 thoughts on “Board to consider changing names of six Metro stations

  1. And, given the potential for future extensions along Venice, should LA Metro really be naming one station in Culver City, “Culver City” when there may well be more stations in Culver City in the future?

  2. @Erik G

    That can be done quite easily. North Culver City, South Culver City, East Culver City, West Culver City, Downtown Culver City, Westfield Mall Culver City, etc. etc.

    It’s just like renaming Wilshire/Western as West Koreatown, Wilshire/Normandie to Koreatown, and Wilshire/Vermont as East Koreatown.

  3. Conner G: The inflated costs aren’t always the fault of the government; it is often the fault of the private companies who inflate the prices for a tax payer funded government agency, or pull the old “change ordure” trick by bidding really low, then in the middle of work, claim the true cost has risen and will need more money to finish the project. The agency either pays or the private company leaves the project a half-done mess with the media and people like you blaming the agency for the half-finished job. Of course the agency pays up.

  4. There is nothing wrong with private companies, that’s how capitalism works.

    If you don’t like it, feel free to move to Cuba or North Korea and see how well off they run public transit under totalitarian Communism.

  5. Angry Middle Class

    There is also nothing wrong with some socialism. Did you know the U.S. just like other major countries has a mixed economy with elements of both capitalism and socialism. We have public police, fire departments, in some cases public utilities, public school systems, parks, etc. There is no crime with having a transit agency that is run by the goverment. Tokyo’s metro system was run by the local government up until very recently (the early 2000′s) when it was finally given to private hands. But even still it is highly regulated by the government to keep the need for making profit from getting out of control.

  6. While “community” names might sound nice, it will be confusing to occasional riders. When For example, if I’m a tourist taking metro downtown from LAX, and I know that the green line intersects with the silver line at the 110 freeway, I want the station at the 110 freeway to have the 110 name in it. Not the name of the neighborhood, which I don’t really care about because I’m just connecting there. Same with Venice/Robertson… I may not care if its in Culver City or not, I want to know what the cross streets are so I can catch the CulverCity Bus that runs down Venice Blvd. Station names MUST be descriptive of their navigational location, not named after people or unincorporated neighborhoods that have little meaning to the outsider.

  7. @Bobby

    Then metro should come up with a better way of making sure that the bid matches the scope of the project and its expenses. Its metros job to make sure the process is legit and fair as an agency funded by the tax payers. If a bid is too low, don’t accept it. I don’t think what the companies are doing is right, as they are essentially scamming the taxpayers, but that’s all the more reason for metro to come up with a better way of handling these types of problems.

Comments are closed.