Los Angeles City Council OKs using Measure R local return dollars toward Leimert Park and Hindry optional stations for Crenshaw/LAX Line but funding picture still not complete

The Los Angeles City Council voted on Wednesday to use $55 million from Measure R local return funds to help build a Leimert Park station and Hindry station for the Crenshaw/LAX Line. The above report from City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana explains that $40 million would go to the Leimert Park station and $15 million toward the Westchester station.

In the past, Metro has estimated the cost of the Leimert Park station at $131 million and the Hindry station at $15 million; current estimates may be different.

A Leimert Park station would be underground and located at Crenshaw Boulevard and 43rd Place while the Hindry station would be at street level and located at Florence Avenue and Hindry Avenue, making it the nearest station to Westschester.

As the report explains, the city would actually bond against future revenues from Measure R local return funds (15 percent of Measure R sales tax revenues is returned to cities in Los Angeles County on a per capita basis). The total cost of the investment in the stations would be roughly $100 million depending on bond market conditions.

Both stations are considered as optional stations for the project. As part of the bidding process for the project, Metro is seeking a construction firm that could build one or both of the optional stations within the project’s $1.762.9-billion budget. If that can’t be done, other funding will be needed; the Metro Board has previously decided that the Leimert Park station gets first priority of the two optional stations.

Bids from construction firms are expected to be soon released by Metro staff. The Metro Board of Directors could vote to award a construction contract as early as its June meeting.

Related: fact sheet on Leimert Park optional station and fact sheet on Hindry optional station.

8 replies

  1. Nice to see LA City contribute to build the station.. However, I still think the residents and the business in the area should have contribute to the project too.

  2. Lock the gates already, those Executives you villify oversaw the fix for the gating while complying with various legal requirements that saved the agency $20 million a year in station agent costs. That alone makes them worth every cent they are paid.

    I look forward to 2-3 years for now when Metro has the first figures for what increased revenue locking the gates creates versus that the honor system produced. We’ll see who is proved right — we critics or the zealot pro gating types.

    BTW, the light rail system can never be fully gated due to design issues. And foaming at the mouth regarding decisions made 20+ years ago (often before Metro even existed) is childish in the extreme. Plus this near-cult fixation asserting that gating is so much better than honor system flys in the face of modern transit industry practice (not just in the U.S. but in many countries around the world) especially during the domestic light rail renaissance. Erik Griswold can drown anyone who is obsessed with gating with examples that show the wide scope of the issue isn’t so simplistic. To quote that rascal of an author Harlan Ellison: “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    I’ll also answer briefly this response to a previous post I made

    Jason Grant on April 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM said:


    Can you explain what “the architecture of the TAP card as designed is problematic at best. Metro staff are trying to make the best of a less than optimal situation that they inherited” is?

    TAP was introduced in 2008. What problems does TAP have that other cities don’t?


    TAP was custom designed and despite implied talking points of the TAPucrats no attempt was made to work with peer agencies to learn from their experiences. It was a fiefdom for a small group of employees who spent tons of money poorly and then bridled at taking responsibility for the miserable mess that was created. Eventually first Matt Raymond and then David Sutton have been given the unenviable task of fixing the fundamental design flaws. Fixing something halfway through implementation is always harder and way more expensive than doing it right at the start. And BTW my disdain for the chief TAPucrat (now retired) is reciprocated. I mean this is someone at a public meeting who addressed me when I asked a question as “Mr. Gabbard”. Thank goodness this person is now unable to mis-management any other projects. YESH!

  3. Instead of spending, what, $100 million so that riders don’t have to walk less than half a mile, I would’ve rather seen the city put Measure R money towards some underpasses on the Orange Line, so that closer headways could be run, and its rush hour riders could ride in dignity.

  4. This is a good sign. It is great of AnVil to use the last of his political capital to get this right.

  5. Everything for light-rail, NOTHING for the bus riders, regardless of the governmental source!

  6. Funding would not have been an issue had Metro had the brains to actually lock the gates and actually collected fares from the start since the past 25 years of operating under the honor system.

    Failure to think ahead in building things with revenue in mind is a common problem with Metro’s construction plans.

    So here’s a plan:

    As punishment, slash all the Metro executives pay by 50% (the compensation table can be viewed here: http://www.metro.net/about/board/executive-compensation/) for the next 25 years and that’ll be the funding to build these two stations.

    Hopefully that will serve a lesson for Metro employees in not making stupid decisions like putting faith in the honor system.