|
Post by ieko on Sept 26, 2009 14:25:15 GMT -8
I think eventually we're going to need to go to a color + letter system, but when this will be I'm not so sure.
The big picture right now is that a lot of the lines are going to have the ability to share tracks since they're all light rail besides the red/purple lines. From what I gather the main problem is that the light rail lines don't share the same sepcifications, so this would need to be rectified. The end game though is that once the system has a unified structure then existing lines can grow longer without technically creating new lines. A good example of this is the upcoming Downtown Connector project.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 26, 2009 15:54:16 GMT -8
Right now we have the "Purple Line" and the "Blue Line" that meet down at 7th/Metro. ...Can't honestly tell the difference in th colors themselves! I have to remember that Purple means Wilshire to discriminate. Now, if the color used (in this case, Purple) was the "Wilshire Line" and the line was named "Wilshire"--discrimination would be easier. This is ridiculous to think that Purple is discriminatory. I still don't understand why we continue having this color arguement over the last decade. Why does the LA metro naming system have to be like other major cities? There's nothing wrong with the color system. It's unique to Los Angeles and serves it's purpose well. Plus, the train destinations are noted at every station so you know which way you're traveling. Yes, you may get the oddball person who gets confused, but who hasn't been confused by the letter/number system in Paris or New York? It's all about a little bit of education at EVERY metro system in the world.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 26, 2009 15:59:37 GMT -8
I think that's a really good point that with the lines growing and connecting, Expo will no longer be Expo when it continues into East LA, and Wilshire will no longer be Wilshire if it is extended to some unknown future Eastern point of termination, etc. ...And despite my color blindness, some schema other than names might avoid inevitable confusion!
Reflecting back to my hometown, Cleveland, the lines came to be "named" as colors in addition to being identified as colors. Everytime "Green Line" is mentioned, the word Green is written out as well. ...And it also comes close to the color + letter approach that ieko suggests. Gosh, ...as long as Alzheimer's doesn't steal my perception, I'd be all set.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 26, 2009 16:28:43 GMT -8
I agree with LAofAnaheim that there is nothing wrong with the color system. I very much doubt that they will change the Blue line to Gold one day, but they may change the Pasadena portion of the Gold line to Blue. Metro has until at least 2018 to think about this one (or whenever the Regional Connector and the Crenshaw line are completed). Will the Crenshaw line be called "Green"? Will Expo be "Aqua" (I hope so)? NYC uses the alphabet and a color, but they have so many more lines than we will have for a long time. The only name that does not make sense to me is "Expo", and unfortunately it is sinking in and becoming the default name of the line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 26, 2009 20:09:02 GMT -8
Methinks the currently-named Expo Line will be labelled as the Aqua Line, but will be referred to frequently as the Expo Line.
Why? Because Expo is short for Friends4Expo, the grassroots group that turned the political establishment on its ear and virtually saved mass transit in the aftermath of the Red Line cost overruns, and which established rail as the preferred version of mass transit when the political establishment was overwhelmingly favoring buses.
Heck, the "Expo Line" was once called the Air Line during its previous heyday.
The leadership of Friends4Expo has come out in favor of the Aqua name, and its supporting neighborhood councils and communities in the Westside have come out in favor the Aqua name, so once Bernard Parks (whose political star is fading a bit) can be successfully brushed aside with his desired Rose Line, the Aqua name will be official.
Again, it will be officially called the Aqua Line but for the next generation those of us who fought for it since the turn of the century will continue to call it the Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 26, 2009 20:09:26 GMT -8
This is ridiculous to think that Purple is discriminatory.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 26, 2009 20:10:38 GMT -8
Metro has previously indicated that at some point in the future they will likely switch from colors to either letters or numbers. If that's the case I'd rather it be sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 26, 2009 21:56:31 GMT -8
Metro has previously indicated that at some point in the future they will likely switch from colors to either letters or numbers. If that's the case I'd rather it be sooner than later. There is no reason to go to meaningless letters and numbers like New York (one of the few systems that uses this). London has the biggest system in the world and uses names for lines and it works great. At least with colors you can see the map and make the connection with the name which can't be done with numbers or letters which have no rational connection. With the DTC, we'll actually have less lines if they keep the more simple east-west and north-south running approach, which is much simpler operationally even though everyone in theory wants a branch system which creates a lot of problems especially in a street running system. I'd expect the Pasadena portion of the Gold Line will revert to the Blue Line and the Expo Line will go from Aqua to Gold. If there is a Crenshaw Line, it could then be Aqua. I am in the minority, but I still strongly favor naming the lines after where they really go and stations after the neighborhoods they are in instead of after the cross-street they are on, which we do most of the time in contrast to most systems in the world. Believe it or not, most Angelenos have not been on our rail system (300k a day in a county of over 10M is a very small percentage). They are people where I live in the City of Los Angeles that have no idea there is rail mass transit in Los Angeles. Also, Los Angeles trails other cities like SF, NY, and DC in tourism. Having a someone new to the system trying to figure out where the A line goes is going to be less ideal than something that is more apparent. If we really do have to go to letters, I'd at least like to see something that makes sense (i.e. E for Expo-Eastside, W for Wilshire, H for Hollywood, C for Crenshaw, etc...)
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 26, 2009 21:58:10 GMT -8
frankly, I prefer colors over letters or numbers.
let them wait as long as possible to switch to some stupid A1 B2 C3PO system that sounds like it belongs on a BINGO card. of all the transit systems that I have ever encountered in my lifetime, New York's was always the most confusing to me.
at the very least, you have to have colors on the maps. I can't think of a single subway system that doesn't use color, even if they do use letters, numbers or names. even if it ends up as the "Expo Line" or the "B52 to Santa Monica", I would want that light rail train to be represented by a lovely shade of aqua.
at the risk of sounding insensitive to the color-blind, without colors on maps (that is, only black), everyone would be effectively blind. for the sake of the color-blind, I wouldn't mind having the word BLUE added to maps or stations.
I wouldn't mind names as long as everyone could agree to a name — and this being California, I doubt you would ever get that sort of agreement. that's a shame because "Ginza Line" means something to me. it pinpoints the subway line to a specific place in the city. And I even like London's names (Baker Street + Waterloo= Bakerloo).
but, I agree that around here, if you name a train "Wilshire Line" or "Hollywood Line" people who live at other points along the line will get cross.
and personally, even with the Regional Connector, I would hope that each train would have a limited number of possible destinations. I don't want to be sitting at say, Willow Street in Long Beach, and waiting to see if the train that's arriving is headed for Santa Monica, East Los Angeles or Pasadena... or Azusa or Whittier or whatever.
eventually, I would hope that Los Angeles would need two or three Regional Connectors, to reduce crowding and the whole headway problem that comes when you have too many branches.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 26, 2009 22:33:04 GMT -8
James, I agree with your thoughts entirely. I've never been to Tokyo, but given their orderly society, I can certainly see them using the naming protocol as well for their giant system. I also agree about New York. I was thoroughly confused there, but I thought London was quite easy to navigate despite being a similar size.
I agree there may be more of a controversy in naming the line than in colors. However, I really don't think people in North Hollywood or at LA City College (which is almost East Hollywood) are going to raise a stink about calling it the Hollywood Line, nor do I think that people in Century City are going to be upset about a Wilshire Line when every other station is on Wilshire. Ditto with people in Inglewood with a Crenshaw Line.
Expo might be a problem, but it could be officially called the Expo-Eastside Line. Some people on the Eastside would probably call it the Eastside Line, some people on the Westside would shorten it to just Expo and maybe some people would just call it the E Line.
The Long Beach to Foothill Line might be difficult to name since it will be so amazingly long, but I might propose calling it the Alameda Line or maybe the Alameda-Arroyo Line. People in the San Gabriel Valley call the grade separation project Alameda Corridor East even though Alameda Street is no where near the SGV.
For the Green Line, I'd probably go with Airport Line (assuming we ever actually get there) over Century Line. Overall, I don't think naming the lines is all that difficult and would create much controversy. We named freeways forever and we name these lines in practice when we are developing them. There is a reason why we name them Expo and Crenshaw, because it makes perfect sense. Otherwise people wouldn't know what they are talking about. When the lines go into actual service, we seem to forget that.
Do people that favor a number system really think we should rename the Metrolink lines to A, B, C, D and E rather than San Bernadino, Ventury County, Orange County and so forth? If not for Metrolink, then why for the MTA?
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the Blue Line was called before it went into service back in 1990? I was just a teenager and don't recall.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 27, 2009 0:57:39 GMT -8
James, I agree with your thoughts entirely. I've never been to Tokyo, but given their orderly society, I can certainly see them using the naming protocol as well for their giant system. I also agree about New York. I was thoroughly confused there, but I thought London was quite easy to navigate despite being a similar size. It may have more to do with multiple lines sharing the same corridor. NYC system was quite easy to navigate when I visited there. From Midtown Manhattan its color keyed. Blue=8th Avenue, Red= 7th/Broadway, Orange=6th Avenue, Yellow, South Broadway, Green=Lexington/Park Avenue, etc. You've answered you own question. How the lines operate will tell a lot more of how they go with naming/coloring/lettering the line to quickly relay to passengers on the platfrom what service is coming and where it is going. Also with the freeways along with the naming there are those ugly numbers and letters that are used to quickly relay what kind of freeway it is, and it's directional function. I-5 north of downtown, the Golden State Fwy, south of Downtown, the Santa Ana. Metrolink service has a completely different function. These are commuter lines who's trip pattern is based upon which geographical region they start to a CBD focal point which is Los Angeles, hence the Ventura County Line, Antelope Valley, etc. However with the run through tracks that could change in theory, much like the Regional Connector may change/adjust the routing and naming of the lines. In the planning guides and studies it was the Los Angeles-Long Beach LRT, somewhere around the Mid 80's they called it the Blue Line.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 27, 2009 8:49:13 GMT -8
There is no reason to go to meaningless letters and numbers like New York (one of the few systems that uses this). 100% False. Most large Metro systems use numbers (Mexico City, Moscow, Seoul) or letters and numbers (NYC, Paris). The few that use only names (London, Hong Kong) are the exception. None use colors other than to discriminate different lines on a map (NYC also does this) and for a very good reason. People can find "1,2,3,A,B,etc" on a map even if they don't speak English. Colors are inferior in that regard because too many people don't know more than basic colors and/or don't speak English. I must be misunderstanding something. How is it any easier to correlate the "Circle Line" with yellow than it is to correlate the A train with red? Are you thinking that Metro would remove colors from the map altogether? That's not going to happen. Trains can still have destinations listed. The destination signs will say something like either "Aqua Santa Monica" or "E Santa Monica".
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 27, 2009 9:39:43 GMT -8
I also agree about New York. I was thoroughly confused there, but I thought London was quite easy to navigate despite being a similar size. I agree with that. But for me it had nothing to do with colors, names, or letters. The express trains in NYC were confusing and the fact that lines overlap so much was confusing. Paris and London were very easy to navigate compared to NYC. I twice got on the wrong train in NYC and never did that in Paris or London.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 27, 2009 12:07:26 GMT -8
In the planning guides and studies it was the Los Angeles-Long Beach LRT, somewhere around the Mid 80's they called it the Blue Line. To add to that, the names "Blue Line" and "Red Line" surfaced from the RTD in 1989. Before that time, the Red Line was known as the "Metro Rail" project.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 27, 2009 12:47:55 GMT -8
There is no reason to go to meaningless letters and numbers like New York (one of the few systems that uses this). 100% False. Most large Metro systems use numbers (Mexico City, Moscow, Seoul) or letters and numbers (NYC, Paris). The few that use only names (London, Hong Kong) are the exception. Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C., Portland, Cleveland and San Diego all have Green Lines. Tell me again, which terminology is the exception?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 27, 2009 13:28:24 GMT -8
The standard in the US is colors. London is not in the US. masonite compared LA to NYC and then NYC to London so....
Anyway I don't have a huge objection to color names, but I often see people confused. I read an article just the other day where a guy spent a week touring LA only by bus and rail. Interestingly he referred to the gold line as the yellow line. People can get confused no matter what you name it, but I think that more people can tell the difference between "1" and "2" than can tell the difference between "gold", "yellow" and "orange". Twice I've come across people on the red line to North Hollywood thinking that the orange on the map must be the "gold" line because they thought that the real gold line was the yellow line. It's an unnecessary confusion. And like I said if Metro already plans to switch sooner is better than later.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 27, 2009 14:46:00 GMT -8
The standard in the US is colors. London is not in the US. masonite compared LA to NYC and then NYC to London so.... Anyway I don't have a huge objection to color names, but I often see people confused. I read an article just the other day where a guy spent a week touring LA only by bus and rail. Interestingly he referred to the gold line as the yellow line. People can get confused no matter what you name it, but I think that more people can tell the difference between "1" and "2" than can tell the difference between "gold", "yellow" and "orange". Twice I've come across people on the red line to North Hollywood thinking that the orange on the map must be the "gold" line because they thought that the real gold line was the yellow line. It's an unnecessary confusion. And like I said if Metro already plans to switch sooner is better than later. You are right to a degree that many systems around the world use letters and/or numbers. I haven't been on the ones you mentioned, although it seems as systems get quite large (i.e. bigger than Washington DC, numbers and letters become more prominent). There are quite a few that use names as well on top of London and Hong Kong that you mentioned. Toronto and Tokyo come to mind. Overall, I think it is a mixed bag. I think we both can agree that we don't want to see confused people on the rails. I still consider renaming the Wilshire branch to the Purple Line as a big victory so there has been some progress in this regard. Like I said before I wouldn't have a big problem if they went with letters if they stand for something (E - for Expo/Eastside, etc...) It is nice to give the lines a bit of an identity and I think we lose that a little bit when we go with the 1,2,3,4, 5 or ABCDE naming system. On the station names, I definately think we are in the minority in going with intersection names instead of landmarks or neighborhoods. Some people will say this is for the bus system integration and I can appreciate that, although there is an argument that people less familiar with a city have more benefit for seeing a name like Staples Center instead of Pico, or Los Feliz instead of Vermont/Sunset. However, using neighborhoods for station names give off a little more pride and instill just a bit more sense of community. It just reinforces a somewhat true/untrue notion of Los Angeles as a city of no neighborhoods. Damien's Get LA Moving Map I thought was a good example of station names.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 27, 2009 14:57:49 GMT -8
LA does seem to be unusual for station names based on the cities that I've been. But as you point out, it does correlate with the bus system and LA (and surrounding) is basically a grid so it makes some sense. I never thought about it before, but I really like the idea of using landmarks and neighborhood names. It gives a sense of place.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 28, 2009 0:20:48 GMT -8
Referring to my "home road", the Gold Line, I suspect there are still people who think the Gold Line goes to the town of Sierra Madre (which lost rail service in 1950 and is unlikely to get it back), and not to Sierra Madre Villa Ave. If it were up to me, I'd call the present terminal "East Pasadena", which is more accurate and less likely to cause confusion. Then there's the "Mission" station in South Pasadena. Since it's the only station in that city, why not just name it "South Pasadena"? We have so many streets named "Mission" in LA County, there's probably a place where "Mission" crosses "Mission".
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2009 7:39:14 GMT -8
I think you can name a route anything and most riders will remember it. This is because most riders are regular riders, and they know which line they take every single day.
I prefer naming routes by their destinations. If the destination changes (due to an extension), then the name changes. Since there are no loops, the destination tells you exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there.
As an example, normal southbound Blue Line would show 'Long Beach, Downtown'. Shortened Blue Line would show 'Long Beach, Willow'. Purple Line might show 'Wilshire/Western' or 'Union Station'. This is how BART (SF Bay Area) handles things.
This is how BART handles things.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 28, 2009 8:54:28 GMT -8
Referring to my "home road", the Gold Line, I suspect there are still people who think the Gold Line goes to the town of Sierra Madre (which lost rail service in 1950 and is unlikely to get it back), and not to Sierra Madre Villa Ave. If it were up to me, I'd call the present terminal "East Pasadena", which is more accurate and less likely to cause confusion. Then there's the "Mission" station in South Pasadena. Since it's the only station in that city, why not just name it "South Pasadena"? We have so many streets named "Mission" in LA County, there's probably a place where "Mission" crosses "Mission". Good points Bob. The one station name that bothers me the most in the entire system is Memorial Park. It is literally one block from the heart of Old Town Pasadena, one of LA's most historic and vibrant centers. Almost no one getting off the train goes to Memorial Park even though it is right there. Virtually everyone is going to Old Town Pasadena. Wouldn't the merchants in the area prefer to have it called Old Town Pasadena? I mean if tourists in Downtown LA are looking at a Metro map and see Memorial Park, that has no meaning to them. If they see Old Town Pasadena, they may say I have heard of that and lets go there or we don't need to rent a car to go there, we can take the metro.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2009 10:23:59 GMT -8
^ I definitely agree, it should be called 'Old Town Pasadena'. Better to use station names that make sense to more people.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 28, 2009 10:47:22 GMT -8
The one station name that bothers me the most in the entire system is Memorial Park. It is literally one block from the heart of Old Town Pasadena, one of LA's most historic and vibrant centers. Almost no one getting off the train goes to Memorial Park even though it is right there. Virtually everyone is going to Old Town Pasadena. Some other offender station names I've noticed: - Anaheim Station (I've heard many tourists say "Let's take the Blue Line to Disneyland some time!")
- Redondo Beach Station (so-named because it's at the intersection of Marine Ave. & Redondo Beach Ave., yet 6 miles away from the city of Redondo Beach)
- Long Beach Station (on the Green Line at Long Beach Blvd. but not in the city of Long Beach)
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 28, 2009 12:56:09 GMT -8
Redondo Beach is a very misleadingly named station. It is not near the beach, and actually is further away from the beach than El Segundo or Douglas. I have had to explain this to many lost tourists.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 28, 2009 13:09:41 GMT -8
Redondo Beach is a very misleadingly named station. It is not near the beach, and actually is further away from the beach than El Segundo or Douglas. I have had to explain this to many lost tourists. This station is technically within the Redondo Beach city limits, but not very close at all to Downtown Redondo Beach, which is spitting distance to the actual beach. This station would probably be better called "North Redondo".
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 28, 2009 14:23:36 GMT -8
I met some tourists at LAX (Aviation station) and they had 6 hours to kill and were interested in checking out the oceanside. They were going to take the Green Line to "Redondo Beach" (because they saw the word 'beach' in the station name...so gullible, right?) and I had to inform them that their best bet was to transfer to the Blue Line and go to Transit Mall station, as that's the closest to get to the ocean by Metro.
Logically...what sounds more like a beach station? Redondo Beach or Transit Mall?? Transit Mall is also something that needs to be changed. I think that should be Aquarium/Pine Avenue.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 28, 2009 14:52:06 GMT -8
I met some tourists at LAX (Aviation station) and they had 6 hours to kill and were interested in checking out the oceanside. They were going to take the Green Line to "Redondo Beach" (because they saw the word 'beach' in the station name...so gullible, right?) and I had to inform them that their best bet was to transfer to the Blue Line and go to Transit Mall station, as that's the closest to get to the ocean by Metro. Logically...what sounds more like a beach station? Redondo Beach or Transit Mall?? Transit Mall is also something that needs to be changed. I think that should be Aquarium/Pine Avenue. Aquarium may be stretching it. If you're a tourist visiting Long Beach, you'd have to know that to get from the Transit Mall to the Aquarium of the Pacific, you'd need to transfer to one of the Passport shuttles, which may or may not be sitting there when you arrive on the Blue Line. Or, you could walk south on Pine, preferably use the Promenade because it glides over several streets south of Ocean, and know that the aquarium is not the large, round building with fish and whales painted on the side of it. Metro needs better maps and signs at the stations, and you could have signs point the way to the aquarium without adding "aquarium" to the station name.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 6, 2010 14:12:31 GMT -8
Any word on when the board will decide on a name? With little more then a year, the clock is ticking as things like signage, maps, and printed materials need to be created in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 6, 2010 14:31:38 GMT -8
Any word on when the board will decide on a name? With little more then a year, the clock is ticking as things like signage, maps, and printed materials need to be created in advance. Well, the official name has long been decided and in use: Expo Line. If they want to change it later, that's another thing. The official name "Metro Expo Line" was adopted long time ago at a Metro board meeting after a lot of fighting. The only thing that was left out at that meeting was the color. But I think the color can be internally decided by the Metro staff for use in their maps, and we all know what the color is.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 6, 2010 15:43:59 GMT -8
I was under the impression that "Expo Line" was just a place holder until the final decision by the Metro board would be made. Something like how the the Gold Line was called the "Blue Line" until right before it opened and the Orange Line was called the "San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project" for a very long time.
The last CPUC doc on Dorsey Crossing calls it the "Exposition Boulevard Transit Corridor Light Rail Transit Line"
I think you all agree that a consistent naming scheme is important to avoid confusion. Commuters unfamiliar with the system may think the line is a separate system such as Metrolink because it does not conform with the established naming scheme.
|
|