|
Post by matthewb on Jun 13, 2013 5:05:07 GMT -8
Looks like Expo's ridership is now just under 27k at 26.7k. Should be able to hit the 27k here shortly. With improved run times, I think we'll see a slight bump in ridership, although I think with the parking lots filling up that might put a damper on it (not sure if La Cienaga is filling up too). The two stations have about 1000 combined parking spots. If the lots are both full with people who are indeed taking the Expo line to work and back, that's about 2000 rides per day. Yet, the total ridership is currently approximately 27000, meaning people who are parking at these lots represent less than 10% of current ridership even with most optimistic estimates that the lots are full and all people parking there take the train twice. That percentage will only go down with time, and full parking lots will not have a noticeable effect on ridership growth. A better option would be to replace the parking lots with mixed use development, which I believe is the plan at Culver City. The sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 13, 2013 8:05:21 GMT -8
Brian Taylor and Camille Fink at the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies found: The question is whether free parking at stations encourages or discourages the use of private vehicles. Is free parking a perk of ownership or is it a public transit subsidy which encourages transit use? It strikes me that it’s an interim strategy to encourage transit adoption that will fall away with adequate population density and increasing difficulty in using private vehicles (congestion, expensive parking, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 13, 2013 9:22:49 GMT -8
Looks like Expo's ridership is now just under 27k at 26.7k. Should be able to hit the 27k here shortly. With improved run times, I think we'll see a slight bump in ridership, although I think with the parking lots filling up that might put a damper on it (not sure if La Cienaga is filling up too). The two stations have about 1000 combined parking spots. If the lots are both full with people who are indeed taking the Expo line to work and back, that's about 2000 rides per day. Yet, the total ridership is currently approximately 27000, meaning people who are parking at these lots represent less than 10% of current ridership even with most optimistic estimates that the lots are full and all people parking there take the train twice. That percentage will only go down with time, and full parking lots will not have a noticeable effect on ridership growth. A better option would be to replace the parking lots with mixed use development, which I believe is the plan at Culver City. The sooner the better. I agree that parking has a somewhat limited factor, but you are downplaying the amount, because you assume that there is no parking turnover during a 24 hour period, which is certainly false and also that no car contains more than just a driver (also false). Taking this into account the ridership is probably closer to 4-5k from the parking. Of course, people parking at these lots take the train twice. You really think they leave their car, get on the train and then don't come back? Sure there may be an odd person here or there who goes Downtown and then gets a ride back from someone else, but that would be pretty insignificant and rare. Not everyone works a 9-5 job every day. There are many reasons that people go to Downtown in a 24 hour period, from entertainment, concerts, sports, court appointments, government business, etc... Many people go to Downtown in the late afternoon or early evening and want to avoid the massive Westside traffic and very expensive parking charges Downtown. They don't always come alone either as I see couples and groups arriving in Culver City all the time. Bus connections on Expo are not the greatest and many people simply won't deal with a bus connection and then a slow rail line so they stick to their cars if they can't easily park and jump on the train. BBB is still not even on TAP yet. Expo still misses key destinations like Downtown Culver City so it will be many years if ever before Expo is surrounded by large transit oriented development that is comparable to where people want to go. Believe me not many people want to go to the corner of La Cienaga/Expo. Even Culver City station doesn't have a whole lot of stuff right around it. That will change, but for now, people need a second form of transport whether it be bus or car.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 14, 2013 10:59:30 GMT -8
Expo Line June ridership seems sky-high from my observations. Expect 28,000 - 29,000 riders.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 24, 2013 21:36:14 GMT -8
Expo Line June ridership seems sky-high from my observations. Expect 28,000 - 29,000 riders. Expo Line June ridership still does seem really strong from my observations. Perhaps it'll almost hit 30k.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 12, 2013 10:30:18 GMT -8
Looks like June numbers came in about 100 short of 27k. Pretty much all bus and rail ridership is down year over year.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 12, 2013 10:52:28 GMT -8
Ah, you guys are so on top of this! So, Expo Line June ridership is 26,894. I do take these numbers with a grain of salt though. I don't think their estimates are accurate at all. From what I was told, someone goes there and counts the people in one or two trains and then they extrapolate the numbers to the entire day from that. I think in reality the June ridership was visibly stronger than the May ridership. In theory everyone should be tapping now but there are still a lot who don't. But then Blue and Expo share platforms and you still can't tell who's riding which line.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 20, 2013 10:20:38 GMT -8
It looks like Expo Line has reached its maximum ridership for now. For several months, the ridership has stayed slightly below 27k and the July ridership is 26,908, virtually identical to the June ridership. However, when the school starts, we might see it climbing up to around 30k as many kids ride the train.
It's too bad that they haven't been able to speed up the line at all -- despite having fixed the Expo - Blue junction and Culver City ATP -- which would have helped with the ridership.
Orange Line bus ridership is 27,152, higher than the Expo Line. If it was built as light-rail, the ridership would probably be around 45k or more now. It should have definitely been built as light-rail -- what a waste of a transit corridor to put a bus there.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 20, 2013 12:39:08 GMT -8
has the way they count riders changed in the last year?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 20, 2013 12:48:32 GMT -8
It looks like Expo Line has reached its maximum ridership for now. For several months, the ridership has stayed slightly below 27k and the July ridership is 26,908, virtually identical to the June ridership. However, when the school starts, we might see it climbing up to around 30k as many kids ride the train. It's too bad that they haven't been able to speed up the line at all -- despite having fixed the Expo - Blue junction and Culver City ATP -- which would have helped with the ridership. Orange Line bus ridership is 27,152, higher than the Expo Line. If it was built as light-rail, the ridership would probably be around 45k or more now. It should have definitely been built as light-rail -- what a waste of a transit corridor to put a bus there. We can't quite break that key 27k barrier on Expo. Maybe next month. I rode from Culver City to Expo Park on Sat. and it was pretty fast (seemed a little faster than usual). I really wish that Farmdale stop had never been built as it really slows the line right in the middle unnecessarily. Imagine being able to go 55 mph there. That was a bad decision to include the station rather than an elevated crossing even with the elevators and their maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 20, 2013 13:22:04 GMT -8
has the way they count riders changed in the last year? No, some Metro staff goes there and counts a couple of trains and then they extrapolate it to the whole day. They probably use TAP data to aid in the extrapolation. They claim only a few percent error but I take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 20, 2013 13:24:31 GMT -8
It looks like Expo Line has reached its maximum ridership for now. For several months, the ridership has stayed slightly below 27k and the July ridership is 26,908, virtually identical to the June ridership. However, when the school starts, we might see it climbing up to around 30k as many kids ride the train. It's too bad that they haven't been able to speed up the line at all -- despite having fixed the Expo - Blue junction and Culver City ATP -- which would have helped with the ridership. Orange Line bus ridership is 27,152, higher than the Expo Line. If it was built as light-rail, the ridership would probably be around 45k or more now. It should have definitely been built as light-rail -- what a waste of a transit corridor to put a bus there. We can't quite break that key 27k barrier on Expo. Maybe next month. I rode from Culver City to Expo Park on Sat. and it was pretty fast (seemed a little faster than usual). I really wish that Farmdale stop had never been built as it really slows the line right in the middle unnecessarily. Imagine being able to go 55 mph there. That was a bad decision to include the station rather than an elevated crossing even with the elevators and their maintenance. Farmdale Station adds two whole minutes. That's 7% of the entire time between Los Angeles and Culver City -- quite significant. It was Herb Wesson's idea to put a station there. A rail bridge that would raise the tracks over Farmdale Ave would have cost $10 million, which would have been far cheaper in comparison to the station that cost $35 million (that includes various other safety enhancements along the line but doesn't include the legal expenses). However, Expo considered building a bridge a political defeat and they didn't want to do it for that reason. However, the really slow part seems to be the Flower St segment and segment by USC.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 20, 2013 14:57:02 GMT -8
My experience is that the train is always stopped for a long time at Vermont and then the last mile on Flower into 7th Metro takes 5-10 minutes. has the way they count riders changed in the last year? No, some Metro staff goes there and counts a couple of trains and then they extrapolate it to the whole day. They probably use TAP data to aid in the extrapolation. They claim only a few percent error but I take it with a grain of salt. Yeah, I was wondering if they'd switched over to just using only the TAP card to count passengers. I suppose they will once all the rail stations have turnstiles.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 20, 2013 15:05:01 GMT -8
My experience is that the train is always stopped for a long time at Vermont and then the last mile on Flower into 7th Metro takes 5-10 minutes. No, some Metro staff goes there and counts a couple of trains and then they extrapolate it to the whole day. They probably use TAP data to aid in the extrapolation. They claim only a few percent error but I take it with a grain of salt. Yeah, I was wondering if they'd switched over to just using only the TAP card to count passengers. I suppose they will once all the rail stations have turnstiles. Most of the light rail stations including most of Expo's cannot have turnstyles as there is not room for them so counting by TAP will never work.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 20, 2013 15:34:23 GMT -8
We can't quite break that key 27k barrier on Expo. Maybe next month. I rode from Culver City to Expo Park on Sat. and it was pretty fast (seemed a little faster than usual). I really wish that Farmdale stop had never been built as it really slows the line right in the middle unnecessarily. Imagine being able to go 55 mph there. That was a bad decision to include the station rather than an elevated crossing even with the elevators and their maintenance. Farmdale Station adds two whole minutes. That's 7% of the entire time between Los Angeles and Culver City -- quite significant. It was Herb Wesson's idea to put a station there. A rail bridge that would raise the tracks over Farmdale Ave would have cost $10 million, which would have been far cheaper in comparison to the station that cost $35 million (that includes various other safety enhancements along the line but doesn't include the legal expenses). However, Expo considered building a bridge a political defeat and they didn't want to do it for that reason. However, the really slow part seems to be the Flower St segment and segment by USC. A problem with a pedestrian bridge was that they would have had to close the Farmdale street crossing to prevent kids from walking across in the street, but there would have been new environmental impacts (traffic) that would have reopened the FEIS. Similarly a rail bridge would have created at least visual impacts, again reopening the FEIS. Both of those were covered in testimony before the CPUC.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 21, 2013 11:27:51 GMT -8
All the blame for Farmdale goes to Expo. They had all the time in the world to do an environmental assessment for a rail bridge, which would only take two weeks. You don't see more than a few sentences about bridges in EIRs. What impact does a tiny rail bridge across a tiny street has on environment? Visual impacts (Dorsey historical buildings are not even near Expo) and cost were greatly exaggerated by Expo. LAUSD wanted the rail bridge. Instead, Expo chose to fight it in the court for many months and years until they got defeated, which delayed the project and cost Expo perhaps $30 million extra than a rail bridge and also slowed down the line for 2 whole minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 5, 2013 10:11:54 GMT -8
Culver City parking lot now reaches 100% capacity before 10 am. Certainly there is a huge increase in the demand for parking, which means a huge increase in the discretionary riders. People are learning about the line.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Sept 5, 2013 11:09:18 GMT -8
If it's full now what becomes of future riders when phase 2 opens? I mean, Culver City station (at present) is strictly for eastbound travel. If the line has THAT many riders who live close to a station --but not close enough to walk-- then how will Expo be able to accomodate a presumably future ridership? --the crowd that wants to go the OTHER direction? I'm aware of a vocal TOD crowd that seethes at the notion that parking structures would be built along rail lines --let alone buildings with parking spaces-- as if rail is only for those who live along it.
Does Metro have extensive plans for further accomodating these park-and-ride commuters as more and more people learn about the line?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 5, 2013 11:14:40 GMT -8
If it's full now what becomes of future riders when phase 2 opens? I mean, Culver City station (at present) is strictly for eastbound travel. If the line has THAT many riders who live close to a station --but not close enough to walk-- then how will Expo be able to accomodate a presumably future ridership? --the crowd that wants to go the OTHER direction? I'm aware of a vocal TOD crowd that seethes at the notion that parking structures would be built along rail lines --let alone buildings with parking spaces-- as if rail is only for those who live along it. Does Metro have extensive plans for further accomodating these park-and-ride commuters as more and more people learn about the line? Culver City has 588 spaces, including the two curb-parking spaces on Exposition Blvd entrance. La Cienega has 476. Crenshaw also has 450 spaces. On the other hand, in the Phase 2 segment, Sepulveda will have only 260 and Bundy only 250. 17th St will have just 70 spaces. Therefore, Phase 2 will have a huge shortage of parking.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 5, 2013 11:39:10 GMT -8
If it's full now what becomes of future riders when phase 2 opens? I mean, Culver City station (at present) is strictly for eastbound travel. If the line has THAT many riders who live close to a station --but not close enough to walk-- then how will Expo be able to accomodate a presumably future ridership? --the crowd that wants to go the OTHER direction? I'm aware of a vocal TOD crowd that seethes at the notion that parking structures would be built along rail lines --let alone buildings with parking spaces-- as if rail is only for those who live along it. Does Metro have extensive plans for further accomodating these park-and-ride commuters as more and more people learn about the line? Parking doesn't increase rail ridership. The Red, Blue, Green, Gold and Purple Lines saw increased ridership, but no new parking spaces/garages from when originally built. More people will find alternative ways to get to the rail stations, they'll bike, walk or take buses. Growth does not come from car ridership, but rather from destinations along the line. LA doesn't need more parking, 60% of Los Angeles is dedicated to asphalt, that's pretty horrendous for a large city.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 5, 2013 12:32:41 GMT -8
Culver City parking lot now reaches 100% capacity before 10 am. Certainly there is a huge increase in the demand for parking, which means a huge increase in the discretionary riders. People are learning about the line. The Hayden Tract area has a huge number of people working there and most of the employers are reluctant to pay for parking for their employees, which is expensive in the limited and inconvenient lots. When I was working over there, parking in the expo lot at culver city would have been as about as close if not closer than using the two parking lots on Hayden, the tiny three story lot at the Samitaur building, or the large surface lot about three blocks away on Hayden and Warner, I never did park at the lot, because the signs about towing scared me off, but I wondered how on earth they could possibly enforce that. Considering the battle it is to find street parking on Hayden, I wouldn't be surprised if people working in the Hayden tract are parking at Expo because they can't find street parking.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 5, 2013 13:07:38 GMT -8
Culver City parking lot now reaches 100% capacity before 10 am. Certainly there is a huge increase in the demand for parking, which means a huge increase in the discretionary riders. People are learning about the line. The Hayden Tract area has a huge number of people working there and most of the employers are reluctant to pay for parking for their employees, which is expensive in the limited and inconvenient lots. When I was working over there, parking in the expo lot at culver city would have been as about as close if not closer than using the two parking lots on Hayden, the tiny three story lot at the Samitaur building, or the large surface lot about three blocks away on Hayden and Warner, I never did park at the lot, because the signs about towing scared me off, but I wondered how on earth they could possibly enforce that. Considering the battle it is to find street parking on Hayden, I wouldn't be surprised if people working in the Hayden tract are parking at Expo because they can't find street parking. Enforcement couldn't be any easier. Bring a tow truck. If someone parks and leaves the area and doesn't return in half hour, have it towed. Wheel boots would work fine too and could be even easier.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Sept 5, 2013 19:45:54 GMT -8
If it's full now what becomes of future riders when phase 2 opens? I mean, Culver City station (at present) is strictly for eastbound travel. If the line has THAT many riders who live close to a station --but not close enough to walk-- then how will Expo be able to accomodate a presumably future ridership? --the crowd that wants to go the OTHER direction? I'm aware of a vocal TOD crowd that seethes at the notion that parking structures would be built along rail lines --let alone buildings with parking spaces-- as if rail is only for those who live along it. Does Metro have extensive plans for further accomodating these park-and-ride commuters as more and more people learn about the line? Close enough, but not close enough to drive? Says who. I have a friend who did a study this summer for an east coast transit agency. They found a very high amount of drivers parking at the station who drove less than a quarter of a mile to get there. Some as little as two blocks. When something is free, people abuse it. Theres no reason not to. Econ 101. Parking is an enormous waste of space, and free parking is an insult to Metro. Instead of spending millions on parking, lets spend millions on better bike and ped access. The Hayden Tract area has a huge number of people working there and most of the employers are reluctant to pay for parking for their employees, which is expensive in the limited and inconvenient lots. When I was working over there, parking in the expo lot at culver city would have been as about as close if not closer than using the two parking lots on Hayden, the tiny three story lot at the Samitaur building, or the large surface lot about three blocks away on Hayden and Warner, I never did park at the lot, because the signs about towing scared me off, but I wondered how on earth they could possibly enforce that. Considering the battle it is to find street parking on Hayden, I wouldn't be surprised if people working in the Hayden tract are parking at Expo because they can't find street parking. Enforcement couldn't be any easier. Bring a tow truck. If someone parks and leaves the area and doesn't return in half hour, have it towed. Wheel boots would work fine too and could be even easier. Say someone parks, walks off for a coffee, comes back and boards a train. Theyre seen walking away from the station. They get towed. What a way to win over ridership!
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Sept 5, 2013 19:59:31 GMT -8
James with one hand you dismiss those who park on the lot as abusers of free stuff while with the other you scold Gokhan for suggesting that, well, someone may be abusing the free stuff! Which is it?!
Personally, I'd love to see better biker and ped access but I'm also allowing for the possibility that there may be even more riders from, say, more than a quarter mile away who would rather take the train if given an opportunity to park their car somewhere. But that's just me giving train riders the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 6, 2013 8:53:10 GMT -8
Enforcement couldn't be any easier. Bring a tow truck. If someone parks and leaves the area and doesn't return in half hour, have it towed. Wheel boots would work fine too and could be even easier. Say someone parks, walks off for a coffee, comes back and boards a train. Theyre seen walking away from the station. They get towed. It's a moot issue because drinking beverages on the train is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 6, 2013 9:03:05 GMT -8
If it's full now what becomes of future riders when phase 2 opens? I mean, Culver City station (at present) is strictly for eastbound travel. If the line has THAT many riders who live close to a station --but not close enough to walk-- then how will Expo be able to accomodate a presumably future ridership? --the crowd that wants to go the OTHER direction? I'm aware of a vocal TOD crowd that seethes at the notion that parking structures would be built along rail lines --let alone buildings with parking spaces-- as if rail is only for those who live along it. Does Metro have extensive plans for further accomodating these park-and-ride commuters as more and more people learn about the line? Culver City has 588 spaces, including the two curb-parking spaces on Exposition Blvd entrance. La Cienega has 476. Crenshaw also has 450 spaces. On the other hand, in the Phase 2 segment, Sepulveda will have only 260 and Bundy only 250. 17th St will have just 70 spaces. Therefore, Phase 2 will have a huge shortage of parking. I have to wonder how much of that Culver City parking is from people like me who live within walking distance of a Phase 2 station and would no longer need parking once it opens. The line is also really awkward to get to by bus from Brentwood/eastern parts of Santa Monica. That will change especially if BBB does a good job rerouting to connect with the new stations.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 6, 2013 9:17:42 GMT -8
If it's full now what becomes of future riders when phase 2 opens? I mean, Culver City station (at present) is strictly for eastbound travel. If the line has THAT many riders who live close to a station --but not close enough to walk-- then how will Expo be able to accomodate a presumably future ridership? --the crowd that wants to go the OTHER direction? I'm aware of a vocal TOD crowd that seethes at the notion that parking structures would be built along rail lines --let alone buildings with parking spaces-- as if rail is only for those who live along it. Does Metro have extensive plans for further accomodating these park-and-ride commuters as more and more people learn about the line? Close enough, but not close enough to drive? Says who. I have a friend who did a study this summer for an east coast transit agency. They found a very high amount of drivers parking at the station who drove less than a quarter of a mile to get there. Some as little as two blocks. When something is free, people abuse it. Theres no reason not to. Econ 101. Parking is an enormous waste of space, and free parking is an insult to Metro. Instead of spending millions on parking, lets spend millions on better bike and ped access. Good point James. That's very true, I know people who live a 10 minute walk to a station (esp in North Hollywood and Pasadena) who would drive because of the allure of "free parking". If the parking wasn't free, they'd most likely walk. But given the choice, they take the more convenient option. That space would be better used for housing, office and retail spaces. Look at the higher ridership stations in LA, most of them are the dense stations with options for pedestrians..not cars. A park-n-ride station is just a 1 way destination station; a station with office, retail, housing, is a 2-way destination stop. That's what brings higher ridership. More expanded parking = more traffic = more auto-centric policies = more reliance on the personal automobile. A vicious cycle.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 6, 2013 10:06:37 GMT -8
I think the big question mark on phase 2 is whether BBB and Culver City Bus will improve services on Bundy and Sepulveda, respectively.
Parking is going to be irrelevant if there is a genuine commitment to improve bus connection to Expo. There will be no reason to drive if BBB14 or CC6 arrives at our stop every 5 minutes or so. For all of its existence, BBB has focused mostly on east-west transit... moving people to/from Santa Monica to points east. They never really take n-s bus service very seriously. I think at the very minimum, BBB will need to double the frequency on Bundy (Rapid 14 anyone?) to meet the demand. Culver City will need to upgrade Rapid 6 to all day service, rather than just rush hour service. Westwood station already has good bus connection so not much is needed.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 6, 2013 10:09:50 GMT -8
Studies done on the question of free parking and ridership indicate that while it would seem that the parking encourages light rail use, it seems to be a money sink. Where it's installed, the strategy is usually to begin charging for it at whatever the prevailing rates because otherwise, as has been stated, the parking availability is abused.
In the case of the Culver station parking lot and perhaps La Cienega and Sepulveda as well, I anticipate the parking will become pay parking at sometime after Phase II comes on line. I would like to see the city "clean up" the sidewalks and crosswalks within a quarter mile of stations so that older adults can take advantage of the mobility they still have (and burn calories).
Similarly a transit goal needs to be encouragement of adult walking and biking to stations by reducing traffic hazards that impede --especially-- bike use. In the process, the city becomes more livable, transportation becomes efficient and people grow healthier.
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Sept 6, 2013 10:23:48 GMT -8
I live about a 15-minute walk from Bergamot Station, and if there were parking available I would definitely drive to and from the station everyday, even though it's not that far and it would be healthier to walk. It would be worth it to me to cut about 20 minutes a day from my commute time, and I could hit my snooze alarm one more time in the morning. Another case of demand expanding to meet the supply. I did the BBB survey, and added a note that it would be helpful to have north-south shuttles serving the Expo Stations, for example a 26th Street shuttle between Bergamot Station and San Vicente Blvd. or Sunset Blvd.
|
|