|
Post by antonio on Nov 19, 2009 1:26:05 GMT -8
Also, in regards to the stations with options: Wilshire should be at Wilshire/Westwood even though it will be more disruptive. It's the most crucial station on the entire line. I think i read recently that Westwood's office towers alone have as many workers as downtown Salt Lake City. Century City should be at Constellation. No brainer here, with the central location and ability for four portals and possible future development after staging on that vacant NE corner lot, I'm surprised Metro hasn't already eliminated the SM Blvd. option. La Cienega is still tricky but I'm going to go with option A. It is easiest on bus transfers and pedestrian connections to the far west Miracle Mile area (which I must point out is not actually the Miracle Mile proper, that is between La Brea and Fairfax, despite the signage at Wilshire and San Vicente)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 19, 2009 7:00:22 GMT -8
Three points:
1) Great to hear from you, Antonio! Hope things are good for out in "Joisey" 2) I hope you're able to e-mail or otherwise write Metro with your concerns 3) I totally, totally, totally agree with you that the MOS-1 should NOT be built unless we know how it'll intersect with the Crenshaw and Pink Lines
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 19, 2009 10:26:32 GMT -8
Also, in regards to the stations with options: Wilshire should be at Wilshire/Westwood even though it will be more disruptive. It's the most crucial station on the entire line. I think i read recently that Westwood's office towers alone have as many workers as downtown Salt Lake City. Century City should be at Constellation. No brainer here, with the central location and ability for four portals and possible future development after staging on that vacant NE corner lot, I'm surprised Metro hasn't already eliminated the SM Blvd. option. La Cienega is still tricky but I'm going to go with option A. It is easiest on bus transfers and pedestrian connections to the far west Miracle Mile area (which I must point out is not actually the Miracle Mile proper, that is between La Brea and Fairfax, despite the signage at Wilshire and San Vicente) Antonio, I agree with your thoughts wholeheartedly. The Century City has to be on Constellation in the middle of Century City. It looks like Metro is value engineering these stations and trying to go with as few portals as possible which is disappointing. They are not necessarily going with the best locations either if it will help them have a little easier construction. As far as Westwood, I certainly favor Wilshire/Westwood as others do here. I did err in that I didn't previously realize that the UCLA parking lot location would have a portal on the South Side of Wilshire, which is important. Even so, the heart of this district is at Westwood. The UCLA Parking Lot location is too far west. Does LA National Cemetary need a station right next to it when so many people live and work to the East? More people work in Westwood than in all of Downtown San Diego (this according to the MTA itself) and we are going to put a station right next to a cemetary instead of closer to the middle of that district? Given this, it appears that Metro is going with the UCLA Lot location because they won't have to deck Wilshire and it will be a little easier to stage. The VA station over Barrington/Federal is an absolutely horrible decision and hopefully can be reversed. Your "WTF" sentiments are mine and others exactly. I'll post a lot more on this when I get a chance. I encourage you and others on this board to give comments to Metro " Go to www.metro.net/westside and click on “Contact Us”" before it is too late to change some of these things.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Nov 19, 2009 15:02:02 GMT -8
Yeah, don't understand the rationale behind ending it in the VA -- a few blocks away from a high-density area. I emailed comments to Metro suggesting either putting Barrington/Wilshire back in MOS-3 or finding a way to make the VA station connect to Federal. I got to thinking... they probably want the VA station by the massive VA parking lots for park-and-ride purposes -- 405 drivers wishing to go east. So if they can't do both a Barrington and a VA station that would explain why they wouldn't want to put it among the highrises. That got me thinking... why not just do a double end station (forget their terminology for this, but people can enter from both ends) instead of just one. Put one entrance in the parking lot for park and riders and create a connection to Wilshire/Federal. If you look at streetview of the corner on Google maps, you can see that corner is just dying for something on the east side (especially southeast). Threw these together quickly last night... what do you guys think of the idea the VA station. Does it have merit? P.S. also can't figure out how to get images actually in the post... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 20, 2009 14:49:56 GMT -8
Yeah, don't understand the rationale behind ending it in the VA -- a few blocks away from a high-density area. I emailed comments to Metro suggesting either putting Barrington/Wilshire back in MOS-3 or finding a way to make the VA station connect to Federal. I got to thinking... they probably want the VA station by the massive VA parking lots for park-and-ride purposes -- 405 drivers wishing to go east. So if they can't do both a Barrington and a VA station that would explain why they wouldn't want to put it among the highrises. That got me thinking... why not just do a double end station (forget their terminology for this, but people can enter from both ends) instead of just one. Put one entrance in the parking lot for park and riders and create a connection to Wilshire/Federal. If you look at streetview of the corner on Google maps, you can see that corner is just dying for something on the east side (especially southeast). Threw these together quickly last night... what do you guys think of the idea the VA station. Does it have merit? This area is near where I work and I was at the station location community meeting for the Westside Extension, where you can learn quite a bit by talking to different people. I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that a station at the VA doesn't make sense over the dense district around Federal or Barrington which has 8-9 highrises and University High School along with thousands of residents on side streets in large apartment buildings as well as a connection to Santa Monica Blvd., which is two blocks away. The VA has one hospital and almost nothing else. It is so close to the proposed Westwood station at Veteran that these stations would be closer to each other than any other two stations on the entire extension, yet there is literally nothing in between these two stations except for a cemetary, a freeway and a parking lot. Ironically, the VA land is deeded to the United States for sole use for veterans, which means they cannot allocate parking to the general public. People think the VA makes sense because they think it will have plenty of parking for people who live points west. However, because of the VA land restrictions, the only way parking can be built here for the subway is through an underground structure, although Metro has no idea where they could do this or how they would fund it or how big it could be. Since underground parking would be extremely expensive even if it could be built and any lot would be relatively small given the demand, it appears the MTA is not exactly committing to building any parking here. David Mieger, of the MTA said ideally people should access the station by bus or other means (bicycle or walking presumably). The main reasons why this station is in MOS 3 is because Westwood is expected to be such a busy station that it would be at risk at being overcapacity if it were a terminal station and the extreme gridlock from the 405 freeway building West would not allow people to access the station. Note, it is not uncommon for it to take 25-30 minutes to travel a mile heading east between Barrington and Westwood. However, by building the station at the VA, which is almost right up against the 405, they have not addressed the latter issue. We had talked previously on this board about an ideal location being a station box between Federal and Barrington with a portal on the Army Reserve Property at the SE corner of Wilshire and Federal as well as one at Barrington as well as was suggested again the quote above. This way, the VA Hospital would be served almost as well as if the station were on Wilshire in front of the Hospital, because of the way Wilshire sharply curves in this area. Also, this is a 10 acre property that could actually have surface parking. This land is controversial, because the Army sold its interest to a developer a few years ago as it is insufficient for the Army's needs now. The VA had previously given it to the Army back in the 40's. The VA now wants the land back (although the courts have ruled against them) and the developer wanted to change the zoning on the property to develop it. Right now it is zoned institutional so only a museum or school or something like that go there and the community won't allow a change. Yet another wrinkle is that this is kind of a no-man's land in that the City of Los Angeles annexed this area long after the VA was in existence so the VA including this parcel is not part of the City. The developer has told the MTA they can build a portal on this property (and most likely do some staging here as well), as it will probably help their land value by quite a bit. Ideally, the MTA would pruchase this land and develop a surface lot, but the parcel is worth approx. $100M, although building an underground lot at the VA is going to cost a lot as well and probably get close to that amount if they are going to build a decent size lot. Basically, the MTA's position is that the VA is working with them and they can build a station cheaply here. They don't want to deal with the controversy of the Army Reserve parcel. However, this doesn't seem right for the community as we should be building subways where people actually live and work and go to school shouldn't we. If we are going to the expense of building a subway it seems like we should spend a few extra dollars to build it where people can most easily use it not an empty area that can never be developed. Sorry for the long post, but I had a lot of info on this as I was struck by how the MTA could suggest putting the station here instead of Barrington or Federal. It seems so completely wrong. If you agree, please let the MTA know. www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/westside_form.htm
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Nov 20, 2009 15:52:10 GMT -8
what about a portal on the NE corner of Wilshire and Federal? Does that fall under the Army Reserve quagmire as well?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 20, 2009 16:25:05 GMT -8
what about a portal on the NE corner of Wilshire and Federal? Does that fall under the Army Reserve quagmire as well? No, that is VA property.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Nov 20, 2009 17:31:24 GMT -8
Honestly the fact that VA parking isn't allowed to be allocated to non-veterans (the general public using the subway) has me questioning why they would put this station in the VA lot at all. The presentation slides released by Metro touted this station as a site for park-and-ride. If the lots can't be used by non-vets, it's not a park and ride. It's a highly unaccessible station.
Thoughts:
I don't see why Metro would shy away from the developer of the SE corner (Army Reserve) parcel if he has said they can build a portal there. There's no indication of a Federal/Wilshire portal in the presentation slides (perhaps this is a more recent development). It could be a station built awaiting subsequent development.
But what subsequent development? Has to be a museum or school... so the developer sounds like he's in a bind -- he can't really actually develop the land. Why not do a land swap with the developer, get Broad to build his new museum on the SE corner, put a portal in the museum, and put some parking around it?
And on another note: How about working something out with the VA that granted use of the parking lots provided vets get free subway access? Not sure on how set in stone those VA land use rules are... probably underestimating the government bureaucracy on this one...
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 21, 2009 1:34:10 GMT -8
Honestly the fact that VA parking isn't allowed to be allocated to non-veterans (the general public using the subway) has me questioning why they would put this station in the VA lot at all. The presentation slides released by Metro touted this station as a site for park-and-ride. If the lots can't be used by non-vets, it's not a park and ride. It's a highly unaccessible station. Thoughts: I don't see why Metro would shy away from the developer of the SE corner (Army Reserve) parcel if he has said they can build a portal there. There's no indication of a Federal/Wilshire portal in the presentation slides (perhaps this is a more recent development). It could be a station built awaiting subsequent development. But what subsequent development? Has to be a museum or school... so the developer sounds like he's in a bind -- he can't really actually develop the land. Why not do a land swap with the developer, get Broad to build his new museum on the SE corner, put a portal in the museum, and put some parking around it? And on another note: How about working something out with the VA that granted use of the parking lots provided vets get free subway access? Not sure on how set in stone those VA land use rules are... probably underestimating the government bureaucracy on this one... I agree that the use of the VA station without a huge parking facility is questionable at best. The land use provisions from the Jones family that deeded the VA to the United States provides that it must be used to serve the Veterans. Providing parking for a subway station for the general public does not meet that guideline. Providing for a subway station that veterans can access probably does. I also agree that Eli Broad's 3rd undisclosed site for his museum may be this parcel as it has a unique Wilshire Blvd. site that is freeway accesible as well as future transit accessible. Also, it would have plenty of land to properly develop and have a backdrop of the green space of the VA's residential area behind it creating a unique development opportunity and giving the museum its own unique space.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 21, 2009 11:06:23 GMT -8
Honestly the fact that VA parking isn't allowed to be allocated to non-veterans (the general public using the subway) has me questioning why they would put this station in the VA lot at all. The presentation slides released by Metro touted this station as a site for park-and-ride. If the lots can't be used by non-vets, it's not a park and ride. It's a highly unaccessible station. Thoughts: I don't see why Metro would shy away from the developer of the SE corner (Army Reserve) parcel if he has said they can build a portal there. There's no indication of a Federal/Wilshire portal in the presentation slides (perhaps this is a more recent development). It could be a station built awaiting subsequent development. But what subsequent development? Has to be a museum or school... so the developer sounds like he's in a bind -- he can't really actually develop the land. Why not do a land swap with the developer, get Broad to build his new museum on the SE corner, put a portal in the museum, and put some parking around it? And on another note: How about working something out with the VA that granted use of the parking lots provided vets get free subway access? Not sure on how set in stone those VA land use rules are... probably underestimating the government bureaucracy on this one... Federal was previously considered by the MTA. Under the reasons why it was eliminated it just said "sensitive property". In asking the MTA about this, they said there was community opposition, but it seemed more like some sort of political opposition since I know the local pols, Zev and Waxman want the property to go back to the VA even if they seem powerless to make this happen. I agree it doesn't quite add up. The MTA didn't seem to get involved and just is trying to go with the path of least resistance although the resistance seems to not really be there. The community just doesn't want 400 condos there. I don't think there would be much opposition to a subway station with parking and maybe a Broad Museum. The VA cannot give away its land for any material non-veteran uses if it does not directly benefit the vets. Basically, they can allocate land for a subway station which will benefit veterans through increased access to the VA, but they cannot let non-vets use any significant parking. The VA has made clear there cannot be any surface parking for the subway station and will use its local federal police to vigorously enforce this. Also, this is a highly sensitive issue, since many vets and vet groups have been upset in the past for allowing some things that are not directly related to vets. For example, LA National Cemetary is full and vets are upset they cannot be buried in LA. There has been talk of expanding the cemetary since the VA has land. If they were to somehow allow for a giant parking lot for the community instead of this, you would have all sorts of upset vets and rightly so. Since station placement is so important for these projects with the Gold Line often an example where poor placement has really hurt the line, we should have a poll on where this station should be (VA, Barrington, or Federal) similar to what we have done on other similar issues like the Crenshaw option. Sorry, I don't know how to put this up there myself.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 12, 2010 23:35:13 GMT -8
At the community update meeting earlier today, the Westside Subway Extension people released boarding projections for the Wilshire subway. The compiled projections take into account all the other Measure R projects that will be complete when the Purple line opens, and growth through 2035, and included (at each station in each alternative) boardings, boardings per mile, project trips (which includes boardings and people riding to a station from elsewhere) and project trips per mile. The numbers aren't all online yet, but some of them can be found here: thesource.metro.net/2010/04/12/westside-subway-extension-offers-new-ridership-projections-at-latest-meetings/
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 12, 2010 23:51:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 13, 2010 17:16:52 GMT -8
A few things stand out. It looks like they have changed their station boarding estimates. They always said Crenshaw was the lowest on the main Wilshire segment, and now it looks like La Brea. It seems like La Brea could do better given that there isn't a station within 1.5 miles to the East, but that is mostly a single family home area. The Pink Line stations have horrible numbers on this. Some less than 2k or half of Crenshaw. In fact from looking at this, it seems as if the MTA may now be favoring the SM extension after getting to Westwood over the Pink Line. Of course, that is all speculation since there is no funding for either. These seem too low to me as I know people from this area would definately be interested in going to Westwood and Century City, and there is no way to get there now. Some of these numbers just don't make sense. They seem to show huge numbers for a VA station even with the SM extension, which makes no sense. There aren't even 6-8k total people going to the VA in a day even if every single one of them were to go by subway. Yet with all the stations in place they show more people using the VA station than the Century City station??? I'm sorry, that is impossible. This is an example of the modeling software not working in reality. Some people may use the VA station if it were the farthest station to the West, but almost no one will use it if they can continue West unless they have suddenly found thousands of parking spaces. Where do they think these people are coming from as they certainly can't walk there. I'm definately going to try to ask the MTA this question. It makes me not have much faith in the entire model.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 14, 2010 17:54:27 GMT -8
Masonite, I am surprised by the VA station data as well. Perhaps they are expecting Sepulveda Pass line riders to transfer there instead of in Westwood?
However, the VA does have a surprisingly large number of employees. According to the job density map I have, the census block that includes the huge (1/2 square mile) VA parcel has 10k to 50k jobs per square mile, suggesting that over 10k work at the VA campus, most of them near the central hospital. Considering the number of staff needed to run a large hospital, this is realistic.
However, it is odd to expect transit ridership to be equal to employment; even though several thousand patients and family may visit the hospital daily, there are thousands of free parking spaces, and some would still take the bus. This makes me think they are either expecting to be able to build a huge parking lot at the station for park-and-ride, or expect a 405 rapid line to transfer here, rather than in Westwood.
The low Century City numbers are also surprising. I can't think of anything to explain that.
What do we need to do to get Metro to include a Barrington/Federal station as an alternative? It would be much more useful, and still close enough to the hospital, as we have discussed elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 15, 2010 6:55:34 GMT -8
Masonite, I am surprised by the VA station data as well. Perhaps they are expecting Sepulveda Pass line riders to transfer there instead of in Westwood? However, the VA does have a surprisingly large number of employees. According to the job density map I have, the census block that includes the huge (1/2 square mile) VA parcel has 10k to 50k jobs per square mile, suggesting that over 10k work at the VA campus, most of them near the central hospital. Considering the number of staff needed to run a large hospital, this is realistic. However, it is odd to expect transit ridership to be equal to employment; even though several thousand patients and family may visit the hospital daily, there are thousands of free parking spaces, and some would still take the bus. This makes me think they are either expecting to be able to build a huge parking lot at the station for park-and-ride, or expect a 405 rapid line to transfer here, rather than in Westwood. Here's another factor to the modelling, existing Bus transfers and connections. Notice Big Blue Bus Lines 3 and 4 going into the heart of Brentwood and being fed to a VA Hospital Station. When doing modeling, no new bus realignments can be assumed to feed into or away from a station unless it already exists. This is a factor that is hurting a Barrington station but is helping Westwood/VA on top of the other things related to Measure R language, funding, etc. Also is this the farthest western station it will make sense for ridership to be this strong.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 15, 2010 9:04:39 GMT -8
I've got a question.
In Alternative 2, Century City has 6500 daily boardings. In Alternative 3 (which adds the stations west of the freeway), Century City still has only 6570 daily boardings.
Now Alternative 3 adds nearly 20,000 new boardings west of the 405. Do only 70 of these people work in Century City? Or are these people just walking home (and thus generating no Century City boardings)?
These numbers (and others delivered here) are hard to believe. Something smells fishy.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 15, 2010 9:56:45 GMT -8
Another thing is odd.
In March 2010, the Red and Purple Lines had 9,218 average boardings per station. In the Westside Extension, the only station projected to exceed those boardings is Westwood/UCLA (between 11,000 and 14,000 projected boardings). And that is projecting out to 2035.
Now I know the subway currently hits some very high value areas. But I find it very hard to believe that, for example, Century City, a major regional job center, will only have 6,500 boardings 25 years from now.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 15, 2010 14:47:27 GMT -8
Masonite, I am surprised by the VA station data as well. Perhaps they are expecting Sepulveda Pass line riders to transfer there instead of in Westwood? However, the VA does have a surprisingly large number of employees. According to the job density map I have, the census block that includes the huge (1/2 square mile) VA parcel has 10k to 50k jobs per square mile, suggesting that over 10k work at the VA campus, most of them near the central hospital. Considering the number of staff needed to run a large hospital, this is realistic. However, it is odd to expect transit ridership to be equal to employment; even though several thousand patients and family may visit the hospital daily, there are thousands of free parking spaces, and some would still take the bus. This makes me think they are either expecting to be able to build a huge parking lot at the station for park-and-ride, or expect a 405 rapid line to transfer here, rather than in Westwood. The low Century City numbers are also surprising. I can't think of anything to explain that. What do we need to do to get Metro to include a Barrington/Federal station as an alternative? It would be much more useful, and still close enough to the hospital, as we have discussed elsewhere. I just don't buy 10,000 people working here. I am pretty sure the lot holds far less than 1,000 cars, and I doubt it is over 500 spaces. That is for patients and workers and it also is generally not full either. The lot around the Wadsworth is almost always completely empty. Maybe the modeling is showing additional riders from the two BBB lines. It is kind of silly that they can't show that for Barrington since we all know if the station were at Barrington it would be easy to have the route go by Barrington. Even so, these aren't super heavily used lines like a 720 or anything even remotely near that. The Century City numbers make no sense either. Many CC workers live West of the 405 and their model shows only 70 going to Century City. I'm willing to bet $1,000 if the whole Subway to the Sea is built, Century City has more than double the ridership a VA Station would (hopefully a $1,000 will still be worth something by then). Too much of this model just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 15, 2010 18:42:56 GMT -8
Something's seriously not right here. How can the station at Ave of the Stars/Constellation have only 6,500 ridership?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 15, 2010 19:07:52 GMT -8
Something's seriously not right here. How can the station at Ave of the Stars/Constellation have only 6,500 ridership? Probably a lower number of transit dependent riders (which metro seems to underestimate anyway). I think many put too much emphasis on ridership estimates. They are scientific in that they use existing data and complicated techniques to predict ridership, but in the end they aren't anymore accurate than my best guess or yours. For example, 10 years ago who would have predicted that 20 thousand people would move downtown in just a decade? Things can change fast and rail can be a catalyst for that change making ridership predictions tricky.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 16, 2010 3:40:31 GMT -8
In March 2010, the Red and Purple Lines had 9,218 average boardings per station. That's not a good calculation to use since passenger activity isn't evenly distributed among station pairs. Union Station, 7MC and North Hollywood are well above that. Lower boardings would be at places like Wilshire/Normandie, Vermont/Beverly and Hollywood/Western.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 16, 2010 6:27:14 GMT -8
In March 2010, the Red and Purple Lines had 9,218 average boardings per station. That's not a good calculation to use since passenger activity isn't evenly distributed among station pairs. It's the current average per station. Of course some stations are higher and some are lower. But according to the ridership estimates for the Westside Extension, every single station is lower than our current average, except UCLA. That to me makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 16, 2010 19:35:56 GMT -8
Something's seriously not right here. How can the station at Ave of the Stars/Constellation have only 6,500 ridership? Probably a lower number of transit dependent riders (which metro seems to underestimate anyway). I think many put too much emphasis on ridership estimates. They are scientific in that they use existing data and complicated techniques to predict ridership, but in the end they aren't anymore accurate than my best guess or yours. For example, 10 years ago who would have predicted that 20 thousand people would move downtown in just a decade? Things can change fast and rail can be a catalyst for that change making ridership predictions tricky. I agree that they are guesses and not very good ones based on the Westside Extension estimates. However, the reason why everyone gets worked up about them is that they are key in determining funding for lines over others and even if certain lines will be built at all. Also, station locations are often determined with this information being key. These station boarding estimates really play into key planning decisions. Like it not we don't have a lot of other tools to rely on, although I wish common sense played a bigger role ;D
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 17, 2010 5:01:56 GMT -8
It's the current average per station. Of course some stations are higher and some are lower. But according to the ridership estimates for the Westside Extension, every single station is lower than our current average, except UCLA. That to me makes no sense at all. It makes some very good sense. Statistically, the more stations you add, the lower your average becomes spread across all stations. On the other hand, your gain ridership as well as expand the network effect. Also, the ridership at the interstitial stations is going to be lower because there's no major anchor at every stop. Century City and UCLA have obvious anchors; you can tell where the passengers are going to go and why. That's not as obvious with Crenshaw, La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega and Beverly Hills. You can assume that about 50% or more are coming from or going to an intersecting bus. You can then split the rest by origin trips and destination trips. Stations producing a lot of origins will have lower ridership than stations that have a lot of destinations around them.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 17, 2010 23:05:31 GMT -8
Statistically, the more stations you add, the lower your average becomes spread across all stations. Yes. And our current average is over 9k per station. Yet of the new stations being studied, none of them have ridership that high except the Westwood/UCLA station. Look at the numbers again. 4,000, 5,000, 6,000. By the standards of our current subway, all but one of those stations has sub-par ridership. All I'm saying is, I'd like to see how Metro determined these projected boarding figures.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 18, 2010 9:00:22 GMT -8
The thing to remember about modeling is that there is more than one right answer. When they model ridership they create many different models that all have slightly (perhaps even substantially) different ridership figures that vary based on the assumptions used. I'm sure that they could model station boarding numbers in the 10,000 per station range, but they dial it back to a more reasonable number since TA's get in trouble with the feds if their numbers aren't realistic.
Also, I think that they use modeling results that tend to show higher numbers of new passengers. The big sell in transit funding is being able to show that you'll be able to get people out of their cars and onto transit. Nobody appears to be especially interested in building multi-billion dollar subways to get transit dependent passengers off buses and onto the subway.
One curious thing for me is how their model for Expo shows that the large majority of riders will be heading west in the morning and east in the afternoon. Although this makes sense if you look at the 10 fwy, I'm not sure that Expo will see the same pattern. I think that they underestimate the passengers that will head to downtown for a variety of reasons. But then looking at the purple line ridership the western stations are among the least used which would apparently indicate that most riders are not heading west in the morning. It's curious.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 18, 2010 12:52:51 GMT -8
Bluelineshaw wrote "looking at the purple line ridership the western stations are among the least used which would apparently indicate that most riders are not heading west in the morning. It's curious."
Heading west from the end of the Purple Line requires a transfer to a bus at Wilshire/Western. Since trains only run every 10 minutes most of the day, and the deep stations take a minute or two to walk into, transferring from rail to bus gives a 7 minutes average and 12 minute max penalty heading east. (Heading west, the rail to bus transfer is less reliable, although at rush hour the bus frequency is higher, leading to lower average wait times).
For many people who live along Wilshire or Whittier, it makes more sense to transfer to the 720 or a parallel bus route if they are continuing to mid-wilshire, Bev Hills, or Westwood. Even some riders who have to transfer from a different bus in Downtown may choose to transfer to a bus, instead of doing bus-train-bus.
When the Purple Line goes directly to destinations, it will become much more useful for westbound riders, as will Expo when it reaches Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 18, 2010 14:57:26 GMT -8
Sorry for the confusion. I meant the planned westernmost stations, not the existing ones. I was trying to say that the Expo modeling shows that by far most riders will head west while the purple line models don't show the same pattern, or at least not to the same extent. But I take that back. I guess I can't really draw that conclusion since I don't know what they project the future purple line ridership will be at the existing stations. Also, there are only two existing purple line-only stations, so we only have current (?) ridership for Normandie (6,580) and Western (4,768). And my name is Shaw n, not Shaw!
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 18, 2010 22:53:40 GMT -8
Okay, I see what you mean. I agree that the model is suspect, for multiple reasons.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 19, 2010 4:33:22 GMT -8
Yes. And our current average is over 9k per station. Yet of the new stations being studied, none of them have ridership that high except the Westwood/UCLA station. Look at the numbers again. 4,000, 5,000, 6,000. By the standards of our current subway, all but one of those stations has sub-par ridership. Again, do not obsess over average station boardings because it makes things only more confusing. The current average is high because of outliers like Union Station and 7MC. The average is going to go down because we built the most productive parts of the subway first. Also, clarify what 4,000 through 6,000 mean. Are they trip origins? If it were just people beginning a trip at the station, those are outstanding numbers. That would mean the figure of people using the station is at least double those stated. Some systems, notably BART, measure boardings and exits per station. So 4,000 and 6,000 could really be 8,000 to 12,000 people passing through a station daily. I'm not sure how Metro models station activity, but it should break down the numbers further by interstitial riders (people boarding or exiting for transfers), destination riders (people completing a trip near a stop) and origin riders (people starting their trips at a station). Generally speaking, most activity comes from interstitial riders. Also, destinations tend to have higher ridership than origins.
|
|