|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 6, 2008 17:41:45 GMT -8
Freeway median stations aren't bad if they're attached to a large parking lot in the middle of a suburban area. But the success of such stations and transit system is predicated on the transit system's ability to deliver passengers close to the doorstep of their jobs. The system has to relieve car commuters of the time associated with having to navigate in the central business area. Given that the Westside is the destination of many commuters, freeway median stations make absolutely no sense.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 6, 2008 19:44:59 GMT -8
The thing is, the best place to run transit is not where the drivers are driving. Metro's most productive bus routes often parallel the direction of a busy freeway, but do not run anywhere near them. The 10 freeway is quite far away from Wilshire Boulevard, yet Wilshire carries so much bus ridership the subway extension is pretty much necessary. Most drivers would say the subway should run near the 10 freeway, because that's where the traffic is. However, that is not where the transit ridership is. Rail ridership is just like bus ridership, only on a much more intensive scale. These are two separate corridors and two separate modes. A subway line going down wilshire will function more as a local line if there is not double tracking for concurrent express service. If you want to support building double tracking in each direction for the purple line so that it functions as a commuter line I'm right there with you. But as planned a single tracked purple line will not be desirable for commuters moving across the city from outlying areas to the westside. A line going down the 10 would primarilly serve as an express commuter line that would quickly move commuters from outlying areas (riverside, pasadena, orange county, montrey park and etc) to job centers on the westside (culver city, santa monica cloverfield business district, and santa monica civic center) from these hubs commuters can take local transit to get to specific westside destinations. The stations are located near major business centers along the corridor, but for many the stations are not their final destination, this lines purpose is to get commuters across the grid quickly. Most of the commuters that currently fill up the 10 freeway at rush hour will not take the local modes because their total commute times will be to long when compared to the car. Again let me reiterate that this does not replace lines like the purple line or expo, but works to compliment these lines. Bus's, At-grade rail and lines that have stops every half mile are good for shorter distances once you are close to a destination, but they are not good for the complete leg of a long commute. Right now the MTA is doing a good job creating local lines that serve shorter distances well, but this is a 2 tiered issue and will not be solved by creating local lines alone. Fast grade separated commuter rail lines need to reach the westside of both LA and Orange Counties and right now the best option for quick grade separated commuter rail is the freeway medians of the 10 and 405 freeways. If you have questions regarding specifics please look at my prior posts, they talk about this issue in more detail, some of the statements that are being brought up have already been discussed.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 7, 2008 4:31:12 GMT -8
These are two separate corridors and two separate modes. A subway line going down wilshire will function more as a local line if there is not double tracking for concurrent express service. There will not be quadruple tracking because it's more than double the cost for less than double the ridership. End-to-end riders are the smallest subset of total ridership. For some reason, the human mind has the lemming-like capacity to walk off the cliff and assume that when a transit line is built, it is designed to get passengers from one terminal to the other. The Blue Line runs between downtowns Los Angeles and Long Beach, yet the people who ride end-to-end are a very small segment of the nearly 80,000 boardings on the line. First, it is double tracked. Single tracking is when trains moving in two directions have only one track available to them. Most of Metrolink is single track. Second, you have to give a precise number to determine whether that market is worth serving in the first place. Third, you'd need to produce an extraordinarily high number of passengers per mile to even consider light rail. (As for subway numbers, Wilshire is one of the few corridors west of the Mississippi that can support a rail line with sufficient ridership.) We are talking Metrolink here now. The problem is, Metrolink is incompatible with what you are trying to accomplish. Metrolink is actually the best model for rail planning. Metrolink has kept a basic framework, and it has proven to be an excellent model. Metrolink succeeds because it uses extant right of way and puts little into track capital. There's no extant track to the Westside. Metrolink would have to build an all new right of way. The cost advantage is shot right there. Just putting down the capital for Metrolink tracks makes it more feasible to run more frequent but slower urban rail. So why do you suggest spending hundreds of millions per mile for a new right of way to get Metrolink levels of service? Besides, the service is not going to be fast enough to offset the speed and frequency premium. I have a suggestion. We have the technology to produce your desired effect. It's called a bus. We even have services similar to what you desire. The best case examples are the services offered by Santa Clarita Transit and AVTA. They use over-the-road intercity coaches (Greyhound-like buses) that only run for commuters. They are very nice. Creating? Those local lines have been running on the current grid since 1981. The same streets had streetcar or bus service often going back to the early 20th century. I agree with you on the 405 freeway issue. It doesn't have to be rail. Even if it were a Harbor Transitway-style bus stop on the freeway, it would still do well.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 7, 2008 18:14:07 GMT -8
But as planned a single tracked purple line will not be desirable for commuters moving across the city from outlying areas to the westside. I strongly disagree. A Purple Line would only be a 26-28 minute ride to the end from Union Station. Many Metrolink and Gold Line passengers will gladly transfer here for this quick ride to the Westside. 2 major holes in your proposal in addition to the ones Wad gave are how would you get your Metrolink type train from Union Station to the 10 freeway (this is quite a way and there is no right of way). Even if you could get it here it would likely take any perceived time savings away from what you would get from having so few stops as this could take 10-12 minutes right there.. Also, by only having 3-4 stops on the freeway and then telling everyone else to take "local transit" you are going to create a trip that is much slower than if they transferred to a completed Purple Line at Union Station. That would be the case even with a greatly enhanced bus program, which will further add costs.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 9, 2008 2:21:47 GMT -8
There will not be quadruple tracking because it's more than double the cost for less than double the ridership. End-to-end riders are the smallest subset of total ridership. For some reason, the human mind has the lemming-like capacity to walk off the cliff and assume that when a transit line is built, it is designed to get passengers from one terminal to the other. The Blue Line runs between downtowns Los Angeles and Long Beach, yet the people who ride end-to-end are a very small segment of the nearly 80,000 boardings on the line. I'm sorry but your argument sort of supports my statement. The reason why end-to-end ridership on local lines is so small, is because this mode is inefficient for long distances. The people that want to go this distance don't ride the line, they drive. The westside needs a viable alternative to the commuting mode of the freeway and automobile for the 10 between downtown and santa monica and 405 between sherman oaks and irvine. The most effective and efficient alternative would be fast grade separated commuter rail going down the freeway medians. Anything that is going to be at-grade or have 20+ stops is going to be to slow. But as planned a single tracked purple line will not be desirable for commuters moving across the city from outlying areas to the westside. I strongly disagree. A Purple Line would only be a 26-28 minute ride to the end from Union Station. Many Metrolink and Gold Line passengers will gladly transfer here for this quick ride to the Westside. 2 major holes in your proposal in addition to the ones Wad gave are how would you get your Metrolink type train from Union Station to the 10 freeway (this is quite a way and there is no right of way). Even if you could get it here it would likely take any perceived time savings away from what you would get from having so few stops as this could take 10-12 minutes right there.. Also, by only having 3-4 stops on the freeway and then telling everyone else to take "local transit" you are going to create a trip that is much slower than if they transferred to a completed Purple Line at Union Station. That would be the case even with a greatly enhanced bus program, which will further add costs. This is not a replacement for the Purple Line. The Purple Line does not even serve the same corridor. If you are proposing that the Purple line is a better commuting option for people that use the 10 freeway to commute to jobs in Culver City or classes at SMC I think you are mistaken. Local modes like the Purple and Expo are indispensable lines for traveling shorter distances once a commuter is close to a destination, but they are not efficient modes for quickly moving commuters to culver city and santa monica job centers from outlying areas. I also think you might be a little optimistic on the 26-28 minute travelling times for Purple Line from santa monica to union station, considering that the line will be close to 4 miles longer and have at least 7 more stations then the existing Red Line to north hollywood, which has travel times of no less the 29 minutes end to end. I think a line like this will conservatively be closer to a 40 minute time frame end to end. Which is much to long a segment when you consider the commuter potentially has another 40+ minute train ride and 20+ minute bus ride associated with this commute.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 9, 2008 4:14:43 GMT -8
I'm sorry but your argument sort of supports my statement. The reason why end-to-end ridership on local lines is so small, is because this mode is inefficient for long distances. How can you even say I've proven your argument when there is no basic metric to use? Ask a Metro planner if your proposed line can be run through a computer and modeled. Hint: the Metro library is open to the public on Thursdays. Matt, the librarian, can put you in touch with the right people and even show you the ridership database. You've declared a need for a service that has no revealed demand. We'd have to run the Purple and Expo lines to see what are the overall distances and where people are going. Think of the logic behind Metro's limited-stop bus services. Riders know they are faster. However, Metro doesn't care how much faster a limited-stop line runs. The speed is just a byproduct. Metro uses limiteds first and foremost to reduce overcrowding, but there has to be frequent service and a lot of transfer activity. So if the trains become so full that no more riders can be accommodated, Metro would first try to thin demand with point-to-point express service. If that becomes too burdensome for buses to handle, then there will be some faster rail solution. This is exactly where you'd want a bus service then. You could have a "local" version of something emulating line 734 or 761, which would run between Sylmar and LAX. The express would only stop at Sylmar, Orange Line, Wilshire, Pico, Fox Hills and LAX. South of LAX it would be the only available service, since the South Bay curve and Long Beach don't have the connecting service to make transfers worthwhile. So this express would stop at LAX, South Bay Galleria, Artesia Transit Center, South Bay Pavilion in Carson, Wardlow Blue Line station and Cal State Long Beach. The Orange County segment would need OCTA's input, but the freeway is so developed it would need stops every mile.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 9, 2008 4:51:56 GMT -8
Perhaps someone's already mentioned this, but this is indeed the tragic result of having wasted so much money and time exploring a ridiculous MagLev on the P.E. ROW between Union Station and Orange County when we should have been exploring a LRT or Metrolink style service to connect the two counties together.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 9, 2008 9:22:35 GMT -8
Local modes like the Purple and Expo are indispensable lines for traveling shorter distances once a commuter is close to a destination, but they are not efficient modes for quickly moving commuters to culver city and santa monica job centers from outlying areas. I also think you might be a little optimistic on the 26-28 minute travelling times for Purple Line from santa monica to union station, considering that the line will be close to 4 miles longer and have at least 7 more stations then the existing Red Line to north hollywood, which has travel times of no less the 29 minutes end to end. I think a line like this will conservatively be closer to a 40 minute time frame end to end. Which is much to long a segment when you consider the commuter potentially has another 40+ minute train ride and 20+ minute bus ride associated with this commute. The 28 minutes may be to downtown not Union Station, so it may be more like 35 minutes. Nevertheless, your proposal doesn't address any of the issues you raised as problems. A freeway commuter train won't bring people to Culver City or SMC either. Also, it wouldn't be much faster than 35 minutes to SM from Union Station as I stated before you have to get the train to the freeway from Union Station, which would take quite a bit of time and even a car going 70mph with no stops takes close to 20 minutes for the freeway portion of the ride. Combine the 10 minutes to get from Union Station to the freeway with another 20-25 minutes for a train that will need to make several stops and your proposal isn't any faster. I applaud you for thinking outside the box in a way (although the freeway idea has been explored by other politicians like Steve Soboroff and Henry Waxman to no avail), but this seems like a Monorail type idea. There may be some theoretical arguments, but when you get down to the details, it is unworkable.
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Jun 9, 2008 10:19:22 GMT -8
This is not a replacement for the Purple Line. The Purple Line does not even serve the same corridor. If you are proposing that the Purple line is a better commuting option for people that use the 10 freeway to commute to jobs in Culver City or classes at SMC I think you are mistaken. Local modes like the Purple and Expo are indispensable lines for traveling shorter distances once a commuter is close to a destination, but they are not efficient modes for quickly moving commuters to culver city and santa monica job centers from outlying areas. I also think you might be a little optimistic on the 26-28 minute travelling times for Purple Line from santa monica to union station, considering that the line will be close to 4 miles longer and have at least 7 more stations then the existing Red Line to north hollywood, which has travel times of no less the 29 minutes end to end. I think a line like this will conservatively be closer to a 40 minute time frame end to end. Which is much to long a segment when you consider the commuter potentially has another 40+ minute train ride and 20+ minute bus ride associated with this commute. I can tell you from very recent experience that from Anaheim to Santa Monica at rush hour is a 2 hour drive on average. From Anaheim to Century City is an hour and a half. So if you have a 45-minute Metrolink ride from Anaheim to LAUS and then a 40-minute ride to Santa Monica, and a 20-minute ride on a bus, you are still ahead of the game. I'm using this as the extreme, because I can't think of very many places people actually go in Santa Monica that are 20 minutes' bus ride from the 10... and I think your 40-minute estimate is high. As a point of comparison (and I know this isn't light rail here, but the stop density is huge), I can get from Fort Tryon Park in northern Manhattan to the World Trade Center in under 40 minutes on a local train. That's a HUGE number of stops, mostly close together, with high boarding density.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 9, 2008 12:16:01 GMT -8
This is not a replacement for the Purple Line. The Purple Line does not even serve the same corridor. If you are proposing that the Purple line is a better commuting option for people that use the 10 freeway to commute to jobs in Culver City or classes at SMC I think you are mistaken. Local modes like the Purple and Expo are indispensable lines for traveling shorter distances once a commuter is close to a destination, but they are not efficient modes for quickly moving commuters to culver city and santa monica job centers from outlying areas. I also think you might be a little optimistic on the 26-28 minute travelling times for Purple Line from santa monica to union station, considering that the line will be close to 4 miles longer and have at least 7 more stations then the existing Red Line to north hollywood, which has travel times of no less the 29 minutes end to end. I think a line like this will conservatively be closer to a 40 minute time frame end to end. Which is much to long a segment when you consider the commuter potentially has another 40+ minute train ride and 20+ minute bus ride associated with this commute. I can tell you from very recent experience that from Anaheim to Santa Monica at rush hour is a 2 hour drive on average. From Anaheim to Century City is an hour and a half. So if you have a 45-minute Metrolink ride from Anaheim to LAUS and then a 40-minute ride to Santa Monica, and a 20-minute ride on a bus, you are still ahead of the game. I'm using this as the extreme, because I can't think of very many places people actually go in Santa Monica that are 20 minutes' bus ride from the 10... and I think your 40-minute estimate is high. As a point of comparison (and I know this isn't light rail here, but the stop density is huge), I can get from Fort Tryon Park in northern Manhattan to the World Trade Center in under 40 minutes on a local train. That's a HUGE number of stops, mostly close together, with high boarding density. First of all you are missing the first leg of someone's trip. Someone does not usually live next to a metrolink station. You need to calculate for actual travel times on all segments of someone's trip as well as time they will lose on waiting for transfers. You should be adding at least another leg to the trip of at least 10 to 20 minutes, even if its in a car. I also stand by my estimate for the Purple line end to end. Looking at the current times achieved by the Red line to North Hollywood I don't see how you can add 7 more stops and close to 4 more miles and get a travel time lower than the current one to north hollywood. In reference to your stats on New York, the entire length of Manhattan is actually 4 miles shorter then the length of the future purple line I know its hard to believe but it is true, if this does not dramatically illustrate the need for having fast limited stop commuter rail to the westside I don't know what does. This distance is going to be closer to the length of riding the from flatbush brooklyn to inwood hill park from what I know a trip like this would take no less then an hour if you are traveling on local trains alone. We need to consider that the distance from downtown to the westside is just one leg of someones larger commute. The distances people travel in their commute are large, and as a result faster limited stop express lines are needed to help make these commutes more managable. We currently have no viable alternatives to the commuting mode car and freeway on the westside of LA and Orange Counties, the purple line and expo are to slow and have to many stops to be desirable for commuters that would need to travel the complete length of these lines and then some. There is an article in the LA times today that talks about the type of commuter I've mentioned; an MTV librarian that commutes from rialto to the santa monica business district off of cloverfield, she rides Metrolink to downtown and then drives a second car from union station to her job on the westside. This last 15 to 18 mile gap to job centers on the westside cannot be solved solely on the backs of slow local modes, the majority of these commuters will not use it. Fast grade separated commuter rail is what these people want and freeway medians are still the best option for this mode reaching the westside.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 9, 2008 20:07:12 GMT -8
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traffictwo9-2008jun09,0,4524386.story Regarding this woman's commute. With the DTC and Expo Phase 2, she'll be able to save about 10-15 minutes off her driving commute as well as not having the cost of parking a second car and maintaining it and so forth. Since the Water Garden is several miles from the freeway, it is doubtful that the freeway commuter Metrolink proposal would save any time off of this considering that it is at least 20 minutes from the Water Garden to the freeway and that assumes she catches a bus right away from this proposed station and that the station is right at the freeway south of the Water Garden (with only 3-4 stations this proposal will require people to take long bus rides most likely and this is a deal killer for most people.) Again I am not seeing how this Metrolink proposal saves any time even in this example which is tailor made for your point.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 10, 2008 0:27:54 GMT -8
Perhaps someone's already mentioned this, but this is indeed the tragic result of having wasted so much money and time exploring a ridiculous MagLev on the P.E. ROW between Union Station and Orange County when we should have been exploring a LRT or Metrolink style service to connect the two counties together. agreed. I remember discussing this with you years ago, can you recommend a process to push this forward. I want to potentially get a website up but my schedule is gonna be busy for the next couple months.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 10, 2008 23:22:29 GMT -8
In reference to your stats on New York, the entire length of Manhattan is actually 4 miles shorter then the length of the future purple line I know its hard to believe but it is true, if this does not dramatically illustrate the need for having fast limited stop commuter rail to the westside I don't know what does. You neglected to mention how closely spaced the Manhattan subway stops are. They are about 1/3 to 1/2 mile apart, which is about the space of 2 or 3 bus stops in L.A. A Manhattan express train is about as fast as a Rapid bus.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 11, 2008 20:54:38 GMT -8
In reference to your stats on New York, the entire length of Manhattan is actually 4 miles shorter then the length of the future purple line I know its hard to believe but it is true, if this does not dramatically illustrate the need for having fast limited stop commuter rail to the westside I don't know what does. You neglected to mention how closely spaced the Manhattan subway stops are. They are about 1/3 to 1/2 mile apart, which is about the space of 2 or 3 bus stops in L.A. A Manhattan express train is about as fast as a Rapid bus. !!!! wad !!! this is not so. Lets look at these two modes. we have the Q train from canal to 57st, there are 4 STOPS with a distance of 3.42 miles this line can complete this distance in 11 minutes anytime of day, rush hour, noon or whatever. now lets look at the the 720 rapid from western to La Cienega roughly the same distance at about 3.86 miles (a little longer) IMPORTANT POINT ONLY "2 STOPS". at 530 AM the 720 can travel this distance in 12 minutes (close in time but not providing the same level of service). at 620 PM the 720 can travel this distance no faster then 22 minutes. (TWICE AS LONG AS THE Q WITH TWO LESS STOPS). When it comes to commuting at-grade bus's will never match the efficiency of grade separated rail.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 11, 2008 22:33:26 GMT -8
Saadi, I can agree with your last statement, but your logic is becoming circular.
You invoke Manhattan's four-track system and cite a need in L.A., yet we don't even have a two-track system in place yet.
Then you believe it should be more of a regional system, like Metrolink, so it can capture cross-regional traffic.
You're crossing very different modes together while also using the operating characteristics of a different city and force-fitting it here.
Understand that the Manhattan four-track system exists because the local subway system is very slow. It was not built for speed, but to move a large amount of people in a built-up compact space. Also, keep in mind that New York's subway system was built up before the advent of the motorized bus. New York used to have surface streetcars. The local subway functions as a local bus.
We don't have the subway to the sea yet, but time is on our side. We can space out our subway stations more, so trains don't have to make as many stops. Our existing signaling system can tolerate a peak load of trains running at 90 second headways, should the subway ever get so crowded that we'd actually need to run trains that frequently. Also, trains can be coupled to as many as 6 cars.
Even when the subway is built to the sea, it will take many years before Metro has to run 6-car trains running 90 seconds apart. The only way that will happen is if our subway ridership is anything like New York's.
So, our two subway tracks can absorb a lot more ridership before they'd need two more.
If there's a revealed need for ridership to serve the extreme ends (by definition, the slowest trip on a corridor), buses can do the job better. You can get a bus that would run faster than the Purple Line if it ran from downtown Santa Monica to Union Station, but it does not mean that because a bus can serve these two ends faster it negates the need for a subway. The Purple Line can do what Line 720, as well as a handful of east-west buses, does but much faster, cheaper and more reliably.
The only time we can even have this discussion is when the Purple Line opens and has been running for at least a year.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 12, 2008 1:01:28 GMT -8
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traffictwo9-2008jun09,0,4524386.story Regarding this woman's commute. With the DTC and Expo Phase 2, she'll be able to save about 10-15 minutes off her driving commute as well as not having the cost of parking a second car and maintaining it and so forth. Since the Water Garden is several miles from the freeway, it is doubtful that the freeway commuter Metrolink proposal would save any time off of this considering that it is at least 20 minutes from the Water Garden to the freeway and that assumes she catches a bus right away from this proposed station and that the station is right at the freeway south of the Water Garden (with only 3-4 stations this proposal will require people to take long bus rides most likely and this is a deal killer for most people.) Again I am not seeing how this Metrolink proposal saves any time even in this example which is tailor made for your point. The Water Garden on cloverfield is one block from the freeway (bout 1/3 of a mile), needless to say your several mile estimate is inaccurate. I think you might have to get ready for a rude awakening if you think expo is going to be an attractive option to the commuter in that LA Times article. Expo times to the cloverfield from the 7th street metro center will be somewhere in the range from 52 to 63 minutes. (this is based on existing averages from the gold line) Plus you need to include the red line ride which will add another 6 minutes. Plus time for the 2 transfers so possibly an additional 6 minutes for those. 57 minutes (expo) + 6 minutes (red line) + at least 6 minutes ( for transfers)= 1 hour and 9 minutes There is no commuting gain at all, actually a loss of probably 10 minutes plus all the hassles of transfers. I can actually do this trip during rush hour in 45 minutes because I take side streets the whole way to culver city (ahh the miracles of gps). Now if there was a continuation of her metrolink ride from rialto to cloverfield it would be much much faster. There would be no transfer delays because it would be a 1 seat ride. The time it would take to get from union station to cloverfield would be under 28 minutes probably more like 24 to 25 minutes, 28 would be more like to santa monica civic center. (this is based on existing trip averages on metrolink) I don't really understand why you continue to give out inaccurate figures, I strongly recommend looking at some maps and doing some calculations before you make these statements. One last note on one of your prior posts you said that culver city is not next to the 10 freeway. Last time I checked culver city butts right up to the 10. The terminus of phase one of the expo (in culver city) is across the street from where the proposed metrolink station would land, only difference is. The metrolink line would get you there in under 21 minutes from union station while the expo line will get you there in 45. There was another nice article in the LA Times today. www.latimes.com/news/local/traffic/la-me-trafficdayfour11-2008jun11,0,2227257.story Talks about commuters clinging to old habits, and this is exactly what I've been talking about. here are a few pull quotes from the article "Late afternoon riders wait for trains at the Metro Gold Line station in downtown Los Angeles. Despite a $7-billion investment in light rail and subway lines, transit companies in L.A. County have not been able to increase their market share. "
"A Metro Gold Line car is practically empty as drivers whiz by. The L.A. County rail system has a mere 250,000 boardings on an average weekday."
"Traffic backs up on Sepulveda Boulevard in Sherman Oaks. A 2% drop in the number of cars on the roads at rush hour was enough to keep traffic moving freely during the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, but it seems commuters aren't willing to change their behavior. "The fact that we are inhospitable to all of the solutions must indicate we would rather have the problem as we have it now than solve the problem," said a Rand Corp. transportation expert."
It supports what I'm saying, commuters won't change their habits if you offer them ineffective and undesirable options. Blanketing our region with tons and tons of local modes is not going to get commuters to use it. We have to create a solution that will serve their needs. They want to move across the region quickly. Local modes will work for shorter distances, and we are building those, but the most pressing unaddressed need is getting fast grade separated commuter rail to the western regions of Los Angeles and orange counties. And based on the density and lack of grade separated right of ways in these areas, the best and most workable solution is putting 2 grade separated lines down. One down the 10 freeway from union station to Santa Monica with 4 maybe 5 stops STOP 1. Downtown LA Union Station STOP 2. (maybe) La Brea only if there is the north/south metro line which people are talking bout. STOP 3. Robertson Culver City (studios and offices within 2 city blocks) STOP 4. Cloverfield Santa Monica (studios and offices within 2 city blocks, college within 6 blocks) STOP 5. 4th street Santa Monica civic center (civic center and promenade within 1 block) Line 2 would be from Sylmar to Irvine along the 405 Freeway and would have 10 stops. STOP 1. transfer station at 405 and antelope valley line crossing STOP 2. transfer station at 405 and Ventura county line crossing STOP 3. Sherman Oaks (offices and mall within 2 city blocks) STOP 4. Westwood VA/UCLA (hospital, school, mall, offices, federal building within 2 city blocks) STOP 5. LAX (offices, hotels and airport within 6 city blocks) STOP 6. Long Beach Airport (airport within 2 city blocks) STOP 7. Huntington Beach Beach Blvd (offices and mall within 1 block) STOP 8. South Coast Plaza Costa Mesa (offices, hotels and 3 malls within 2 city blocks) STOP 9. John Wayne Airport/Irvine city center Irvine (offices, airport and hotels within 3 city blocks) STOP 10. Irvine Station Barranca Parkway
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 12, 2008 2:30:54 GMT -8
Saadi, I can agree with your last statement, but your logic is becoming circular. You invoke Manhattan's four-track system and cite a need in L.A., yet we don't even have a two-track system in place yet. Then you believe it should be more of a regional system, like Metrolink, so it can capture cross-regional traffic. You're crossing very different modes together while also using the operating characteristics of a different city and force-fitting it here. Understand that the Manhattan four-track system exists because the local subway system is very slow. It was not built for speed, but to move a large amount of people in a built-up compact space. Also, keep in mind that New York's subway system was built up before the advent of the motorized bus. New York used to have surface streetcars. The local subway functions as a local bus. We don't have the subway to the sea yet, but time is on our side. We can space out our subway stations more, so trains don't have to make as many stops. Our existing signaling system can tolerate a peak load of trains running at 90 second headways, should the subway ever get so crowded that we'd actually need to run trains that frequently. Also, trains can be coupled to as many as 6 cars. Even when the subway is built to the sea, it will take many years before Metro has to run 6-car trains running 90 seconds apart. The only way that will happen is if our subway ridership is anything like New York's. So, our two subway tracks can absorb a lot more ridership before they'd need two more. If there's a revealed need for ridership to serve the extreme ends (by definition, the slowest trip on a corridor), buses can do the job better. You can get a bus that would run faster than the Purple Line if it ran from downtown Santa Monica to Union Station, but it does not mean that because a bus can serve these two ends faster it negates the need for a subway. The Purple Line can do what Line 720, as well as a handful of east-west buses, does but much faster, cheaper and more reliably. The only time we can even have this discussion is when the Purple Line opens and has been running for at least a year. Wad my statements are that lines should be built correctly the first time. Going and tearing up those streets to tunnel 2 separate times 10 to 20 years apart is going to raise the price of the purple line needlessly. My adamant call for the purple line being double tracked in each direction for express service and there needing to be a creation of a metrolink line down the 10 is about one principle issue. It is about commuters that are filling up our roads and not filling up the seats of the metro. Gridlock is getting worse and worse but most people still avoid using mass transit in LA, why because the current system does not serve their needs. Let me see if I can put it a different way. Lets look at it as if there were two products... say there were two print shops across the street from each other. Print shop A has been there for years has all black and white copy machines does pretty good, makes enough money but business isn't booming. Then there is Print shop B, print shop B has always been more popular and only continues to get more and more popular, there are lines stretching out the door but people still go there even when there is no outrageous line at print shop A. Print shop A's owner is confused why are all these people going to Print shop B when there is space over here. I have all these great black and white copy machines...hmmm maybe I'll buy a couple more black and white copy machines that will surely get them over here. Needless to say nothing changes... What I'm trying to say is if you are losing or not gaining market share while others in the market are continuously gaining marketshare, you don't go and say lets do more of the same or not doing anything at all. Right now proportionally more and more people are getting on the roads filling up the streets, and not using the metro. The last thing metro should be doing is only building more and more local lines. There is a service metro is not offering to huge portions of the population its called fast commuter rail. And no matter how many bus and at-grade light rail lines you add it does not serve the need for fast commuter rail. When the market is choosing to drive because its faster, building more slow local lines is not the solution. The reason I bring up the double tracked subway in one area and the metrolink commuter rail in another is all about available grade separated right of ways. I don't think there is anyplace to put an east/west grade separated metrolink line that would serve the wilshire corridor. However there is a place to put one for the separate commuting corridor of the 10. Ideally they all should be one mode, but I also believe that solutions need to fit within the system we have already created, as well as be cost effective. Building subways everywhere would be to expensive. That is why I think that these 2 metrolink lines in the center of our 10 and 405 freeways medians are our best/safest/cheapest option for creating a fast commuter rail system that reaches all areas of the region.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 12, 2008 11:40:41 GMT -8
here is another excerpt from that LA times article. We'll find out soon enough. In April, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to convert some carpool lanes on the 10 and 210 freeways to toll roads. The move came after the federal government said it was prepared to offer $200 million for upgraded buses and rail lines if transportation officials would agree to institute so-called congestion pricing on some freeways.
Donald Shoup, an urban planner at UCLA, has a different idea for making commuting more expensive. He notes that 95% of people who drive to work park free when they get there, and that they would carpool more if there were a financial incentive.
"Everybody expects to park free everywhere they go, and that means that cars are the obvious way to travel," Shoup said. Wachs, of Rand Corp., sees the problem as even more basic. For all the bitter carping, he said, motorists show more tolerance for stop-and-go conditions than for solutions that require personal pain.
"The solutions are not unknown," Wachs said. "The fact that we are inhospitable to all of the solutions must indicate we would rather have the problem as we have it now than solve the problem."
This is exactly what I've talked about. Congestion pricing is going to be upon us, and the rich are going to be the only ones that have the privilege of riding the roads in LA. If the transit planners had created modes and alternatives that were more attractive to commuters, namely lines that were faster and commutes that were simpler (no 3 transfers on slow local modes) we would not be in this situation. Every car commuter I know wants to not be stuck in their car, but they won't switch cuz the system is to slow and cumbersome. Now we are going to be forced out of driving by them turning it into a luxury only the Paris Hiltons of LA can afford. GREAT!!! Maybe I will move to NYC after all.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 12, 2008 12:00:20 GMT -8
Oh, so you're just a troll now.
Studies have shown that the lanes are liked by everyone, there are not just so-called "Lexus Lanes." Nonetheless, they could be used better.
Donald Shoup's quote shows how the problem with this city is not that we don't try, it's just that we don't do the right things. We know what our city should look like, in fact the whole world knows what cities should look like. We just ignore it and go back to our old tendencies.
Someone please tell me who said this, but whoever said it typified exactly what is the problem in our city. When a city-council member says that the planning should be left to them and not the planning commission, then you know that something is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 12, 2008 14:05:04 GMT -8
You are the one quoting the inaccurate estimates. Even the harshest Expo critics have not predicted a 60 minute end to end travel time for Expo. Based on the two opinions here it is between 40 and 50 minutes for an end to end travel time. Since the Water Garden is not at the end of the line you can subtract 5 minutes from this and get a 35-45 minute travel time from 7th/Metro.
Your 25 minute to SM from Union Station is not taking into account of how you would get the train to the freeway as I stated before. This could take 10 minutes in and of itself.
The 2 miles to the freeway was stated in the LA Times article - I didn't make it up. After adding up the walking time she'll have to do from the freeway (BTW, you'll have to pay for improved sidewalks and walk signals and such as areas near freeways are notoriously poor for pedestrians much less fairly unsafe), she'll save a few minutes with your proposal assuming it is only 1/3 mile instead of 2 miles and this example is tailor made for you because one of your few stations happens to be right there - if she were commuting to West LA she would be completely out of luck. This is hardly worth the billions of dollars and the neighborhoods and homes destroyed to create a right of way for trains much less actual stations on the freeway where there isn't even a safety shoulder for motorists right now for much of its length. Anyway the proposal is so destructive, expensive and impractical I am done discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 12, 2008 14:07:41 GMT -8
here is another excerpt from that LA times article. We'll find out soon enough. In April, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to convert some carpool lanes on the 10 and 210 freeways to toll roads. The move came after the federal government said it was prepared to offer $200 million for upgraded buses and rail lines if transportation officials would agree to institute so-called congestion pricing on some freeways.
Donald Shoup, an urban planner at UCLA, has a different idea for making commuting more expensive. He notes that 95% of people who drive to work park free when they get there, and that they would carpool more if there were a financial incentive.
"Everybody expects to park free everywhere they go, and that means that cars are the obvious way to travel," Shoup said. Wachs, of Rand Corp., sees the problem as even more basic. For all the bitter carping, he said, motorists show more tolerance for stop-and-go conditions than for solutions that require personal pain.
"The solutions are not unknown," Wachs said. "The fact that we are inhospitable to all of the solutions must indicate we would rather have the problem as we have it now than solve the problem."
This is exactly what I've talked about. Congestion pricing is going to be upon us, and the rich are going to be the only ones that have the privilege of riding the roads in LA. If the transit planners had created modes and alternatives that were more attractive to commuters, namely lines that were faster and commutes that were simpler (no 3 transfers on slow local modes) we would not be in this situation. Every car commuter I know wants to not be stuck in their car, but they won't switch cuz the system is to slow and cumbersome. Now we are going to be forced out of driving by them turning it into a luxury only the Paris Hiltons of LA can afford. GREAT!!! Maybe I will move to NYC after all. Hmm...saadi, I don't think that's what the article is getting at. What Shoup has been saying, and I 100% agree, is that if parking is convenient and free, what's their incentive to take public transportation? Some of the clients I travel to offer free working for their workers. Even though for most of them, public transportation is possible to take (b/c the jobs are centrally located in either Century City or downtown), but they don't b/c of the temptation of free parking. In San Francisco, you'll never see free parking anywhere. In LA County, it's all about free parking (or very very cheap - $2 at Hollywood/Highland, c'mon). Shoup is not talking about congestion pricing, your mixing two different ideas together in your assertion. Imagine, if people had to pay market price for parking spots, you think they would drive?
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 12, 2008 14:59:50 GMT -8
here is another excerpt from that LA times article. We'll find out soon enough. In April, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to convert some carpool lanes on the 10 and 210 freeways to toll roads. The move came after the federal government said it was prepared to offer $200 million for upgraded buses and rail lines if transportation officials would agree to institute so-called congestion pricing on some freeways.
Donald Shoup, an urban planner at UCLA, has a different idea for making commuting more expensive. He notes that 95% of people who drive to work park free when they get there, and that they would carpool more if there were a financial incentive.
"Everybody expects to park free everywhere they go, and that means that cars are the obvious way to travel," Shoup said. Wachs, of Rand Corp., sees the problem as even more basic. For all the bitter carping, he said, motorists show more tolerance for stop-and-go conditions than for solutions that require personal pain.
"The solutions are not unknown," Wachs said. "The fact that we are inhospitable to all of the solutions must indicate we would rather have the problem as we have it now than solve the problem."
This is exactly what I've talked about. Congestion pricing is going to be upon us, and the rich are going to be the only ones that have the privilege of riding the roads in LA. If the transit planners had created modes and alternatives that were more attractive to commuters, namely lines that were faster and commutes that were simpler (no 3 transfers on slow local modes) we would not be in this situation. Every car commuter I know wants to not be stuck in their car, but they won't switch cuz the system is to slow and cumbersome. Now we are going to be forced out of driving by them turning it into a luxury only the Paris Hiltons of LA can afford. GREAT!!! Maybe I will move to NYC after all. Hmm...saadi, I don't think that's what the article is getting at. What Shoup has been saying, and I 100% agree, is that if parking is convenient and free, what's their incentive to take public transportation? Some of the clients I travel to offer free working for their workers. Even though for most of them, public transportation is possible to take (b/c the jobs are centrally located in either Century City or downtown), but they don't b/c of the temptation of free parking. In San Francisco, you'll never see free parking anywhere. In LA County, it's all about free parking (or very very cheap - $2 at Hollywood/Highland, c'mon). Shoup is not talking about congestion pricing, your mixing two different ideas together in your assertion. Imagine, if people had to pay market price for parking spots, you think they would drive? The incentive to take transit if parking is free is that we have horrible traffic, no one really wants to be in this traffic but the mass transit solutions being offered are inefficient and undesirable. A commuter looks at it as factors of time and effort, when the mass transit solutions take more time and require much more effort its not going to be an option commuters will choose. The whole quote is not about Congestion pricing. The first part of the quote is, the second part is illustrating that the policy makers have in their mind that the only solution is to make driving more expensive for us. I had stated earlier in this discussion that the continual construction of more and more slow local routes are not going to be successful at weening commuters from their cars, so what the policy wonks are gonna do is start charging us to get in the city. These quotes are an example that this mindset is already upon us. The problem with Lexus Lanes and pricing solutions is that it is a solution that favors the wealthy and not the average citizen of Los Angeles. I wish they had just gone and built workable solutions instead of coming to the idea of creating this exclusive pricing structure for the few. I'm a citizen I pay taxes I want workable solutions, not pricing deterrents.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 12, 2008 16:16:28 GMT -8
You are the one quoting the inaccurate estimates. Even the harshest Expo critics have not predicted a 60 minute end to end travel time for Expo. Based on the two opinions here it is between 40 and 50 minutes for an end to end travel time. Since the Water Garden is not at the end of the line you can subtract 5 minutes from this and get a 35-45 minute travel time from 7th/Metro. Your 25 minute to SM from Union Station is not taking into account of how you would get the train to the freeway as I stated before. This could take 10 minutes in and of itself. The 2 miles to the freeway was stated in the LA Times article - I didn't make it up. After adding up the walking time she'll have to do from the freeway (BTW, you'll have to pay for improved sidewalks and walk signals and such as areas near freeways are notoriously poor for pedestrians much less fairly unsafe), she'll save a few minutes with your proposal assuming it is only 1/3 mile instead of 2 miles and this example is tailor made for you because one of your few stations happens to be right there - if she were commuting to West LA she would be completely out of luck. This is hardly worth the billions of dollars and the neighborhoods and homes destroyed to create a right of way for trains much less actual stations on the freeway where there isn't even a safety shoulder for motorists right now for much of its length. Anyway the proposal is so destructive, expensive and impractical I am done discussing it. I based my estimates from calculations on actual times of the gold line, not idealized projections of what we hope to get. The battles that are ensuing with the expo line sound strangely similar to what the gold line faced in south pasadena. I'm not going to be surprised if that line is slowed to 20 mph in few sections. I think its far fetched to expect that line to come anywhere near its maximum speed projections of 50 mph. If it does I welcome it, however its realistic to expect that line to be slower then projected. We hear time estimates from the 7th street metro center, which really makes the line look faster then it is, since many of the riders are going to be coming from union station, and be required to do 2 transfers just to get there, so an honest time for that line would include the 12 extra minutes that most users will incur trying to get to it. Even with the DTC its still gonna be at least 6 minutes longer. All your statements regarding expenses for sidewalks and walk signals are ridiculous it sounds like you are grasping at straws. Any project in this city will require improvements to our infrastructure. For you to site these as reasons to not build a transit solution is border line retarded. And of course you bring up the complete misdirect and this example is tailor made for you because one of your few stations happens to be right there - if she were commuting to West LA she would be completely out of luck. Oh what if she's going to West LA, pshh what if she's going to bakersfield? Doesn't matter that's another corridor, is Expo gonna get her to West LA? This line isn't tailored for me, it is tailored for business commuters that aren't gonna waste their time doing complete commutes on these slow local modes. I was practical with this solution and planned it based on balancing speed while hitting areas of the highest need. It's no coincidence that there are other people going to job destinations at the locations that I picked for these stations. Do you honestly believe myself and that girl from the LA times article have a conspiracy brewing for line creation. Yeah that's right the next line is actually going from both her front door and mine then we'll both not have to drive. Now if I can just figure out a way to create a line that will go by aunt Betsy's house. I'll even do you the service of addressing your misdirect if both of these lines I've mentioned were built (metrolink down the 10 to santa monica and metrolink down the 405 to irvine) there would be the opportunity for the tracks to link where they cross. That means if you got on this line in Rialto you'd have the choice of taking the santa monica bound train or the sherman oaks bound train, that way she could go straight to UCLA Westwood. Your 25 minute to SM from Union Station is not taking into account of how you would get the train to the freeway as I stated before. This could take 10 minutes in and of itself. Getting the line to the 10 would be easy it would follow the other lines that go south along the LA river to the 10 freeway. You are right, I should never have pitched a rail line that would require building some rail lines, what was I thinking. The 10 minutes you are talking about is already calculated in the line, the distance calculated was from union station following the alignment I mentioned to santa monica. This lines speeds would be no different from any other metrolink line, potentially being even faster because for the distance it is averaging fewer stations then others. This is hardly worth the billions of dollars and the neighborhoods and homes destroyed to create a right of way for trains much less actual stations on the freeway where there isn't even a safety shoulder for motorists right now for much of its length. Yeah you are right its a much better idea spending all the money to expand the same freeway, tear down the same homes spend the same money for carpool lanes that will eventually be changed into "Lexus Lanes" so that Paris Hilton and her friends can drive around town with ease. All because the transit planners insist on only building slow local transit solutions that aren't going to get commuters out of their cars. [quote Anyway the proposal is so destructive, expensive and impractical I am done discussing it. Whatever, I welcome you moving on. good day sir.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 12, 2008 21:38:51 GMT -8
By my estimated timetable for Expo it would be 32-36 minutes from the Water Garden / Bergamot Station to 7th & Flower. Agreed that transfers to and from the Red Line slow the trip to Union Station. But the Regional Connector will speed that up for a whole lot less money than elevated Metrolink to the Westside. How long would the Regional Connector Alternative 5 (subway) take from 7th & Flower to Union Station? It's about 2.3 miles with some tight turns and adds four intermediate stations. About 7-8 minutes? So it could be a two seat ride of Metrolink + Expo Line, around 39-44 minutes for the latter. If Expo trains don't go to Pasadena at least the transfer to the next Pasadena train would only add a couple of minutes. Another big problem with Metrolink to Santa Monica is where do you put the one station, and how do you get to it? It's like SCAG's Maglev proposal, that would go really fast between West LA and downtown, with no stations in-between. Slow connections for most people take away its speed advantage, so why would anyone pay a premium fare to use it?
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Jun 13, 2008 7:24:13 GMT -8
here is another excerpt from that LA times article. We'll find out soon enough. In April, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to convert some carpool lanes on the 10 and 210 freeways to toll roads. The move came after the federal government said it was prepared to offer $200 million for upgraded buses and rail lines if transportation officials would agree to institute so-called congestion pricing on some freeways.
Donald Shoup, an urban planner at UCLA, has a different idea for making commuting more expensive. He notes that 95% of people who drive to work park free when they get there, and that they would carpool more if there were a financial incentive.
"Everybody expects to park free everywhere they go, and that means that cars are the obvious way to travel," Shoup said. Wachs, of Rand Corp., sees the problem as even more basic. For all the bitter carping, he said, motorists show more tolerance for stop-and-go conditions than for solutions that require personal pain.
"The solutions are not unknown," Wachs said. "The fact that we are inhospitable to all of the solutions must indicate we would rather have the problem as we have it now than solve the problem."
This is exactly what I've talked about. Congestion pricing is going to be upon us, and the rich are going to be the only ones that have the privilege of riding the roads in LA. If the transit planners had created modes and alternatives that were more attractive to commuters, namely lines that were faster and commutes that were simpler (no 3 transfers on slow local modes) we would not be in this situation. Every car commuter I know wants to not be stuck in their car, but they won't switch cuz the system is to slow and cumbersome. Now we are going to be forced out of driving by them turning it into a luxury only the Paris Hiltons of LA can afford. GREAT!!! Maybe I will move to NYC after all. That's fine with me. Every purse-dog Prada-wearing Paris Hilton in the Lexus lanes is one fewer annoying twit in the mixed-flow lanes. They're not talking about taking away further mixed-flow lanes, so it should actually have a BENEFICIAL effect compared to the HOV lane as it stands now, with the exception of the worst of rush hour, when all lanes are at a standstill, including the HOV lane. And if it does get worse, public outcry for public transit will finally outweigh NIMBYism and pointless environmental-racism allegations. Let's not forget that New York is very seriously considering congestion charging south of 96th Street. And every company with more than 50 companies who has to pay for parking (whether they charge employees or not) is required by the state to offer a parking cash-out program. It can be as much as $200 a month. Sounds like a financial incentive to me -- but the bus system is so awful for commute that people still won't do it. It's not just about getting to work and back, by the way. Professionals -- the ones you are trying to lure into the public transit system -- want to be able to get to things like restaurants. There's also the problem of distributed worksites -- whether you're a large studio (say, FOX, where Fox Plaza is not walking distance from the Studios, or Disney, where buildings are splattered all over Burbank and Glendale) or a tiny manufacturing company in Vernon whose offices are not at the manufacturing plant. I can't get from one building to the other in any kind of efficient manner -- though it's only three miles, I don't have time between meetings to walk, and the bus that DOES go there takes 15 minutes and only runs once an hour outside of commute times. So while I have really, really convenient public transit to my office -- the train stops literally a half mile from my office -- there's nothing around my office, and I can't get to other worksites -- the one set of worksites is serviced by a bus that runs once an hour, and the other set of worksites is completely inaccessible -- no bus line at all.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 13, 2008 10:28:43 GMT -8
...You are right, I should never have pitched a rail line that would require building some rail lines, what was I thinking.... Yeah you are right its a much... Whatever, I welcome you moving on. good day sir. you have some amazing personal skills. you should really consider addressing people here in a more adult manner. if you ever have a chance of getting this proposal to the people that matter your going to need to talk to then without resorting to sarcasm. no one will like you, and no one will listen to your ideas. no matter how much you believe in them
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 13, 2008 16:52:23 GMT -8
...You are right, I should never have pitched a rail line that would require building some rail lines, what was I thinking.... Yeah you are right its a much... Whatever, I welcome you moving on. good day sir. you have some amazing personal skills. you should really consider addressing people here in a more adult manner. if you ever have a chance of getting this proposal to the people that matter your going to need to talk to then without resorting to sarcasm. no one will like you, and no one will listen to your ideas. no matter how much you believe in them You are probably right, it was inappropriate. But the frustration I exhibited is a pretty common reaction when you are faced with someone that is willingly trying to misinform and engage in character assassination. This individual came to this discussion with their mind already made up, and tried to tear apart this concept every way they could. They negatively estimated every stat that was in favor of this proposal and then positively estimated the stats on every line they clearly felt was threatened by said proposal. Many of the statements this individual made were blatant mis-truths like culver city not being next to the 10 freeway, or that the cloverfield Water Garden was 2 miles away from the freeway when it is in fact only 1/3 of a mile. And the list can go on. These are facts that can easily be checked on the internet, if someones going to hold my feet to the fire expecting me to be a virtual transit engineer I think its reasonable for me to expect their stats to be clean. For someone to go through the trouble of continually bringing fudged facts to the table makes me suspicious of their true intent. Please tell me how you'd react if someone came to a discussion you were involved in and blatantly planting fictitious facts, and maliciously attacking your character as impractical, selfish and ill-informed, I would think you might get a little miffed as well. Again I apologize for the outburst.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 13, 2008 22:17:46 GMT -8
you have some amazing personal skills. you should really consider addressing people here in a more adult manner. if you ever have a chance of getting this proposal to the people that matter your going to need to talk to then without resorting to sarcasm. no one will like you, and no one will listen to your ideas. no matter how much you believe in them But the frustration I exhibited is a pretty common reaction when you are faced with someone that is willingly trying to misinform and engage in character assassination. Many of the statements this individual made were blatant mis-truths like culver city not being next to the 10 freeway I said that the 10 Freeway does not go through Culver City, which is true - although yes one could conceivably walk there from the freeway after crossing a very busy and wide Venice Blvd. As for mistruths to support your argument, you stated that the Expo Line would be about a 63 minute travel time end to end. No where is this time frame supported as I pointed out as well as others have also pointed out on this board. All planning and engineering documents point to a roughly 40-42 minute time frame with some critics namely Damien adding roughly 7-9 minutes on top of this for their estimates. No evidence supports a 63 minute trip - you are the only one who came up with this number. As for the character assasination that you talk about, I have no idea as to what you are referring to as I never would make personal attacks. I stated that widening the freeway to such a degree to put in commuter tracks and stations would necessitate destroying many homes in such a densely populated portion of the City that it would generate intense opposition from all sorts of groups. If you think I am wrong on this you are welcome to try to get any politician in the immediate area to sign off on this plan. If you think I am personally attacking you, then I invite you to go to any neighborhood or church group in the Mid-City area with this plan, where people are still upset with the SM freeway destroying their neighborhoods, and see the difference between the intensity of my arguments and the treatment you would receive there (especially for a rail line where they may or may not even have a station near enough for them to use since you only propose 3-4 stations along the entire length of the freeway with 2 of them in SM). Yes, I have pointed to holes in your argument, but if you are going to state you have a better plan that should be considered above other plans, you have to be able to handle the criticism especially of people who will be irrevocably harmed. I am just trying to let you see the viewpoint that some people may have of this who won't be too enamored with this plan.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 14, 2008 6:05:37 GMT -8
Please everyone, take a deep breath. Transportation planning (which has not really been done in a coordinated effort for decades) is frustrating. I've known Saadi for years, and I've seen others' posts on this thread who disagree with him, and I'll go out on a limb and suggest you're much, much more on the same page than you might think!
The argument between long distance trains with few stops and high speeds vs. shorter-distance trains with more stops and slower speeds (but with higher frequency) is a never-ending one, and we probably need more of both. The libertarian argument of minimizing reliance on trains vs. the environmentalist (dare I say socialist?) argument of minimizing reliance on cars both have strong merits but strong flaws as well.
Some folks reject buses, some folks reject trains, and some folks reject cars. Portions of their arguments carry some serious merit, but similarly also carry some serious flaws as well. Inasmuch as we need to carry mass transit to destinations, destinations need to relocate to mass transit--both will happen, and are already happening.
Both the public and private sectors need to rethink the way they do things, and we need to keep our minds open to innovative ideas while rejecting ideas that appear to have failed (for example, I still remain open to second- or third-generation and other new technologies like monorail or MagLev, but to date they've proven distractions to more reliable forms of rail technologies).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 14, 2008 6:07:49 GMT -8
In other words, when it's time to circle the wagons, we should avoid pointing our guns inward. Perhaps you should all meet each other in person, because then you'd realize you were on the same page and have been on the same page for quite some time (based on your postings, even when you differ in your perspectives and conclusions).
|
|