|
Post by masonite on Dec 30, 2009 11:50:33 GMT -8
As agreed with in the thread..I wish they had ridership by stations in order to prove this point in the future..... FYI, they do keep this data, but don't readily distribute to the public. For example, they can tell you the most boarded stations on a line, which they probably will do shortly for the Eastside Gold. When the North Hollywood extension opened they said how much those stations were in use.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 30, 2009 12:09:26 GMT -8
Gokhan, I don't understand the logic on this one. Didn't Friends 4 Expo recommend a station at Arlington?
From what I can see the public doesn't always have much input into station locations. For the most part the MTA does good work on this, but sometimes they really mess up as there are some locations on the Gold Line that people really don't agree with to put it nicely.
Also, our discussion on the Purple Line is another example. Barrington with office high rises, apartment high rises, a major high school a block away, easy access to SM Blvd., and thousands of people living in the dense neighborhood in the surrounding blocks gets no station, while the VA with nothing but one hospital and the rest trees, grass, surface parking lots that can't be used by Metro patrons, and no real access to surrounding neighborhoods gets a station.
I think the advocacy of a group or neighborhood doesn't always make much of a difference. It does help to have a large single entity involved like LAUSD or the VA as opposed to a bunch of separate parties like those in the Barrington example from what I have seen. Overall, this process needs to improve as these are major decisions that can't be changed and can really affect the viability of a rail line.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 30, 2009 12:39:50 GMT -8
Gokhan, I don't understand the logic on this one. Didn't Friends 4 Expo recommend a station at Arlington? There are several Friends 4 Expo members living in that area but my guess is that they didn't give it much thought. I wasn't involved at that stage. Darrell might know more. I've strongly advocated the Westwood - Overland Station in my neighborhood and now it's getting built despite the Neighbors for Smart Rail opposition and it will be the most important Phase 2 station. Our advocacy for the right-of-way as Light-Rail for Cheviot certainly made it much easier for the right-of-way to be selected as the Phase 2 route. We've certainly had major achievements, and I'm happy about them. That's the difference between us and Fix Expo/Neighbors for Smart Rail. While we direct our positive energy and enjoy things, they burn in their negative energy constantly, sitting unhappily, hoping destruction will come to Expo, feeling grumpy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 30, 2009 12:45:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 30, 2009 13:07:27 GMT -8
Which also stands as a striking contrast to this statement from fixexpo.org: Ha ha! Who had the last laugh? I guess Fix Expo is still too unconscious to update their Web page after being knocked out. LOL
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 30, 2009 14:57:50 GMT -8
Trousdale Station is not a special-events stations, it will be 24/7 as well (or call it 20/7 if you like); although, this has nothing to do with CPUC. To answer spokker, this station, although awfully close to Vermont, is good from a ridership point of view since it will be the only station that stops at the gates of USC and Exposition Park. It was needed and well supported. Trousdale will probably come out to be a very busy station..and spokker, this was a very critical addition to the Expo Line. Trousdale is the closest station to the center of the main campus and will be the main gateway when the Coliseum is used for USC games or special events at Exposition Park. Ridership at this station will surely bypass Vermont and Jefferson. As agreed with in the thread..I wish they had ridership by stations in order to prove this point in the future..... I know that they make the line slower, but I like both the Trousdale and the Farmdale stations. Farmdale maybe not so much, but it sure is better than many of the alternatives. I'd rather have a station there than Farmdale closed off. And the Farmdale station will be used. I assume that Metro and/or DASH will reroute after Expo opens and Farmdale should get a bus stop from one or the other. Trousdale will be much more popular, but I have a question regarding Coliseum events. Will riders coming from the West use Trousdale or Vermont? Seems to me that Vermont is only slightly less convenient.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 30, 2009 17:05:24 GMT -8
I'm thinking Vermont is the better station for people connecting to a bus. For people heading to a game or even the other crap they have in Exposition Park, it's a very short walk.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 30, 2009 18:33:38 GMT -8
I'm thinking Vermont is the better station for people connecting to a bus. For people heading to a game or even the other crap they have in Exposition Park, it's a very short walk. Careful there... The Trousdale station (officially designated as the USC/Expo Park station) is easily MORE important than the Vermont station, given its proximity to major passenger traffic generators such as USC and Expo Park. Given the current location of Expo Park attractions, USC campus entrances, and businesses, the Vermont station simply isn't near anything. Trousdale station will be busy every day, not just on game days.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 30, 2009 18:48:15 GMT -8
I'm thinking Vermont is the better station for people connecting to a bus. For people heading to a game or even the other crap they have in Exposition Park, it's a very short walk. Careful there... The Trousdale station (officially designated as the USC/Expo Park station) is easily MORE important than the Vermont station, given its proximity to major passenger traffic generators such as USC and Expo Park. Given the current location of Expo Park attractions, USC campus entrances, and businesses, the Vermont station simply isn't near anything. Trousdale station will be busy every day, not just on game days. I guess we'll see. Vermont is one of, if not the, busiest bus corridor that crosses Expo. But you're right that there isn't much in that immediate area. At least right now. But I think that a drive down Expo will look different 10 years from now and very different 20-25 years from now. Vermont is a major corridor and could grow, while Trousdale is somewhat surrounded by the park, university, and freeway and probably has less potential.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 31, 2009 22:36:07 GMT -8
Gokhan, I agree that Arlington should have a station in the ideal situation where the surrounding development is dense and walkable, since 1/2 mile is a good station spacing (giving a 1/4 mile or 5 minute walk to anywhere along the line). But wouldn't Normandie be even more important by that definition? And what about the end of the line in Santa Monica? Most of the stations there are more than 1/2 mile apart (though less than 1 mile).
I wonder why a below-grade pedestrian-only crossing was not seriously considered. You would only need to get about 14 feet of separation; 8 ft for pedestrians plus 6 ft for the rail crossing depth. If the tracks could have been ramped up about 5 feet in that area, the below-grade crossing would be less than 10 feet deep. At 1:12 slope (max per ADA requirements), that would only be 40 yard of ramp on either side of the rails.
Perhaps you are right that the grade separation would be a bad precedent. But it would be much cheaper, and would save 60,000 people almost a minute, twice a day (the time lost by this extra station stop).
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 31, 2009 23:24:01 GMT -8
I wonder why a below-grade pedestrian-only crossing was not seriously considered. You would only need to get about 14 feet of separation; 8 ft for pedestrians plus 6 ft for the rail crossing depth. If the tracks could have been ramped up about 5 feet in that area, the below-grade crossing would be less than 10 feet deep. At 1:12 slope (max per ADA requirements), that would only be 40 yard of ramp on either side of the rails. That was precluded by a shallow underground box storm drain parallel to and just south of the tracks around Farmdale. Visibility and safety are very important in such a pedestrian underpass, but wide, well-lit, and close to ground level could help there. But the tracks couldn't be ramped up and still have the street grade crossing that LAUSD apparently objected to closing.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 1, 2010 0:53:09 GMT -8
Gokhan, I agree that Arlington should have a station in the ideal situation where the surrounding development is dense and walkable, since 1/2 mile is a good station spacing (giving a 1/4 mile or 5 minute walk to anywhere along the line). But wouldn't Normandie be even more important by that definition? And what about the end of the line in Santa Monica? Most of the stations there are more than 1/2 mile apart (though less than 1 mile). I wonder why a below-grade pedestrian-only crossing was not seriously considered. You would only need to get about 14 feet of separation; 8 ft for pedestrians plus 6 ft for the rail crossing depth. If the tracks could have been ramped up about 5 feet in that area, the below-grade crossing would be less than 10 feet deep. At 1:12 slope (max per ADA requirements), that would only be 40 yard of ramp on either side of the rails. Perhaps you are right that the grade separation would be a bad precedent. But it would be much cheaper, and would save 60,000 people almost a minute, twice a day (the time lost by this extra station stop). Crime, dude, crime is why this wasn't pursued!!!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 5, 2010 19:49:55 GMT -8
Sent today: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN A.06-12-005 ET AL.
In accordance with Rule 12.1(b) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), Exposition Metro Rail Construction Authority ("Expo Authority') and the Los Angeles Unified School District hereby give notice to all parties to the above-referenced proceeding of a conference for the purpose of discussing settlements in that proceeding. The conference shall be held on Friday, January 22, 2010, beginning at 11 a.m. at the offices of Expo Authority, at 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 34th Floor, in Los Angeles, California 90017. As required by CPUC Rule 12.1(b/ a)ttendance at the settlement conference shall be limited to the parties to this proceeding and their representatives.
Martin A. Mattes Attorney at Law NOSSAMAN LLP 50 California Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 5, 2010 21:04:18 GMT -8
It looks like this may come to a quick conclusion. I wonder if NFSR and Fix Expo will choose to look like es by opposing this.
|
|
davek
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by davek on Jan 6, 2010 1:00:35 GMT -8
An imperfect but necessary result, for the reasons given by Ken. Political realities necessitate imperfection from a transportation viewpoint, but is it a bad thing if affected communities walk away feeling their voices were heard?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 6, 2010 4:51:00 GMT -8
Careful there... The Trousdale station (officially designated as the USC/Expo Park station) is easily MORE important than the Vermont station, given its proximity to major passenger traffic generators such as USC and Expo Park. Given the current location of Expo Park attractions, USC campus entrances, and businesses, the Vermont station simply isn't near anything. Trousdale station will be busy every day, not just on game days. Most of what drives Metro ridership -- on rail, too -- is transfers. Vermont, as the busiest north-south bus corridor in L.A. County, will be a heavily patronized station. The other utility it would have is to balance out loads when there's a game at the Coliseum. San Francisco has a similar arrangement where there are two platforms within three blocks of each other around AT&T Park.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 6, 2010 8:43:49 GMT -8
USC's leadership fought the Trousdale station because of its cozy relationship with its parking operator. It's pretty simple, really. Fortunately, Metro was able to outmaneuver those people with narrow interests.
I think Trousdale Station will be a game changer at USC. This year, USC has 52,000 students, faculty and staff. The lucky students will find housing on campus or nearby. For the rest, most of them will have to drive to campus and park. Expo will open up a brand new option for these people. I would expect that USC will have very high boardings during the school year.
I think it would have been better to have a station at Figueroa/Expo, rather than at Trousdale. This would have helped with Figueroa transfers. Unfortunately, that just wasn't in the cards, due to the issues with USC and with the trench.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 6, 2010 10:44:10 GMT -8
I think it would have been better to have a station at Figueroa/Expo, rather than at Trousdale. This would have helped with Figueroa transfers. Unfortunately, that just wasn't in the cards, due to the issues with USC and with the trench. And now there won't be an easy Silver Line-Expo Line connection there. (Another lost link...)
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 6, 2010 11:27:37 GMT -8
USC's leadership fought the Trousdale station because of its cozy relationship with its parking operator. It's pretty simple, really. Fortunately, Metro was able to outmaneuver those people with narrow interests. I heard similar accusations in regards to the taxi cab lobby for LAX / Green Line connectivity. As you know it has a little more to do with delayed LAX Expansion and FAA interference. I suspect USC opposition has something to do with the influence of their urban planning program, (Professor Moore, et. all,) fears of safety and disruption and the perceived enhanced prestige of having a subway stop at the university. While I'm sure USC makes tons of money off it's parking lots I find it hard to believe they would oppose an urban rail line based solely on those grounds. First, the lots will still be relatively full, Second the university has a huge endowment and third they collect gabs of tuition money which students willing pay through the vehicle of student loans. Student tuition goes up, students always pay. That is one reason why tuition has increased far and beyond the rate of inflation. A rail line only makes the university that much more attractive. Which is why, in my mind, USC never really opposed Expo. They were just playing chess, trying to get the best line, from their perspective, that they could get. They partially succeeded. Or they could be idiots. :*)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 6, 2010 11:28:41 GMT -8
USC's leadership fought the Trousdale station because of its cozy relationship with its parking operator. It's pretty simple, really. Fortunately, Metro was able to outmaneuver those people with narrow interests. I think Trousdale Station will be a game changer at USC. This year, USC has 52,000 students, faculty and staff. The lucky students will find housing on campus or nearby. For the rest, most of them will have to drive to campus and park. Expo will open up a brand new option for these people. I would expect that USC will have very high boardings during the school year. I think it would have been better to have a station at Figueroa/Expo, rather than at Trousdale. This would have helped with Figueroa transfers. Unfortunately, that just wasn't in the cards, due to the issues with USC and with the trench. A station at Figureoa would be so far off from the points of interest in the USC campus and Exposition Park that it would be useless. It was never considered, even in the Hill St alignment. The parking operations was never a factor. Again, those who park at USC on a daily basis (like myself) know that parking is already oversold and USC can't meet the parking demand. On top of that, they are trying to get rid of the parking lots in the campus so that they can build more buildings. The reason for reluctance for a USC/Expo Park Station by the USC administration was two-fold. First, they never wanted an above-ground line. Second, they didn't want a transit station next to the campus because it would spoil the current image of BMW-driven USC campus. Moreover, they were worried that a transit station would bring others to the campus, others being homeless and people of low income, some of them considered potential criminals. In fact this perception is somewhat racist, as most people who fit in this category are people of color as well. So, this contrasts the "Good Neighbors Campaign" of USC, where they collect money to distribute in the neighborhood every year. On the other hand, naturally, administration is not a single person, and some people in the administration value the USC Station. As a matter of fact, in the USC long-range plan, Expo is highly praised. Thankfully the single strongest opposition to Expo, President Steven Sample, will leave this August, having strategically timed his departure just before the Expo Line opens. Good riddance. Coming back to BMWs, while it's true that BMW is the iconic transportation method for USC and there are lots and lots of BMWs in the campus, what remains a fact is that half of the students don't even have a car. That's where the Expo Line will come most handy.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 6, 2010 19:33:14 GMT -8
I think it would have been better to have a station at Figueroa/Expo, rather than at Trousdale. This would have helped with Figueroa transfers. Unfortunately, that just wasn't in the cards, due to the issues with USC and with the trench. And now there won't be an easy Silver Line-Expo Line connection there. (Another lost link...) (scratches head) The Silver Line is a bus line while Expo will be on fixed rail. Given that the bus can be re-routed to serve the rail station better so that connection can be preserved, maybe in the long run, the Silver Line bus could move from the Figueroa/Expo stop to Figueroa(or Flower)/Jefferson to provide a potential link to the under construction Jefferson Expo Line station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 6, 2010 19:48:45 GMT -8
From what I can see the public doesn't always have much input into station locations. For the most part the MTA does good work on this, but sometimes they really mess up as there are some locations on the Gold Line that people really don't agree with to put it nicely. Also, our discussion on the Purple Line is another example. Barrington with office high rises, apartment high rises, a major high school a block away, easy access to SM Blvd., and thousands of people living in the dense neighborhood in the surrounding blocks gets no station, while the VA with nothing but one hospital and the rest trees, grass, surface parking lots that can't be used by Metro patrons, and no real access to surrounding neighborhoods gets a station. Arlington is hardly a major bus line, it's been on the cutting block for the last 5 years because of poor ridership. With all that being said the Farmdale station could work itself out to being a community betterment, for the neighbors to the south of Rodeo at Baldwin Village. That is a moderately dense predominately residential neighborhood with mostly 2 story apartment buildings in the area, so I think the station will get patronage, especially when the line reaches Santa Monica. The VA Hospital vs Barrington is a thorny one, that I can see why they'd go with a station at the VA as a possible transfer point to a future 405 Transit Corridor that might be BRT or Rail. My personal take would have been splitting the difference and place the station between Barrington and Federal, but it may appear impossible to have a park-ride station on the Wilshire/Federal side. However it could still work itself out to having a station at Barrington.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jan 7, 2010 10:05:17 GMT -8
I suspect USC opposition has something to do with the influence of their urban planning program, (Professor Moore, et. all,) fears of safety and disruption and the perceived enhanced prestige of having a subway stop at the university. Prof Giuliano is all about congestion pricing and Moore is all about buses. They both are interesting and intelligent individuals, but balk about the costs of these large, capital projects. Surprisingly there are some in the program that see more benefits associated with rail: last year I had a class that made us envision how communities can benefit from nearby Expo stations, and last semester a civil eng proj was quite enthusiastic about Metro's projects. Anyway, what is the expected ridership at this Farmdale station?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 7, 2010 11:04:53 GMT -8
They may want to keep their options open on the 405 line, but making the VA a transfer station for this line is a problem for a few reasons.
One you can't just build the line on the VA property to the north very easily. Veterans are going to have a problem with VA land being taken for a line even if it is aerial.
Two, you would lose a UCLA station by routing it over to the VA. That is one of the main benefits of this line, because UCLA would only be indirectly served by a Westwood Purple Line. With this line you could put a station right on campus, especially on the North side, which is very far from Westwood Village.
Three, it is much better to provide Valley residents a direct connection to Westwood, which is a real destination rather than the VA, which isn't a real destination for almost everyone. Transfers kill ride time and ridership. Even if passengers are going to Century City, the VA is just one more station to the West and that much farther away. If MOS #5 of the Purple Line does not go under construction, which is highly likely, why would we make people go all the way to the farthest West station when everyone traveling by rail would want to go farther East. A transfer station should be in a middle station as much as possible not on an edge station.
Finally, a VA station doesn't allow for future southern expansion of the 405 line any easier than a Westwood terminus to the 405 line would.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 7, 2010 23:36:23 GMT -8
A station at Figureoa would be so far off from the points of interest in the USC campus and Exposition Park that it would be useless. It was never considered, even in the Hill St alignment. To say Figueroa would be useless (rather than Trousdale) is to ignore the fact that the two stations are only 1000 feet apart, and they are almost exactly the same distance to the center of campus (Alumni Park). No, a station at Figueroa would not have been useless. It would have placed a station directly at the base of the Figueroa Corridor. It would have made Expo more easily accessible to people in South L.A. along Figueroa. It would have served the southeast part of the USC campus, as well as the Science Center school, the Air and Space Museum, the African American Museum, and the Sports Arena. It would also have allowed direct transfers to Figueroa Street buses (rather than Flower Street a block away). It was the trench that precluded having a station nearer to Figueroa Street. This was brought up several times at the EIR meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 8, 2010 8:38:22 GMT -8
A station at Figureoa would be so far off from the points of interest in the USC campus and Exposition Park that it would be useless. It was never considered, even in the Hill St alignment. To say Figueroa would be useless (rather than Trousdale) is to ignore the fact that the two stations are only 1000 feet apart, and they are almost exactly the same distance to the center of campus (Alumni Park). No, a station at Figueroa would not have been useless. It would have placed a station directly at the base of the Figueroa Corridor. It would have made Expo more easily accessible to people in South L.A. along Figueroa. It would have served the southeast part of the USC campus, as well as the Science Center school, the Air and Space Museum, the African American Museum, and the Sports Arena. It would also have allowed direct transfers to Figueroa Street buses (rather than Flower Street a block away). It was the trench that precluded having a station nearer to Figueroa Street. This was brought up several times at the EIR meetings. There is already a Figureoa Station to begin with -- Jefferson. Remember, Flower and Figureoa are less than 500 ft apart -- literally a stone-throw-away and only a minute and a half walk! It's no different than going to the restroom from your office. Jefferson Station serves the Figueroa corridor much better than an Exposition Station would serve. Moreover, the Trousdale Station is much more central to all the Exposition Park attractions, including the ones you pointed out, and the USC attractions than a Figureoa Station would be. How can a station be a central one if it's at the corner of both the USC and Exposition Park campuses? And, then, if you want to get technical, even with a fully at-grade line, there is not enough space (at least 350 ft needed) between Figureoa and Flower to fit a platform.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 8, 2010 15:40:28 GMT -8
There is already a Figureoa Station to begin with -- Jefferson. Remember, Flower and Figureoa are less than 500 ft apart -- literally a stone-throw-away and only a minute and a half walk! It's no different than going to the restroom from your office. Jefferson Station serves the Figueroa corridor much better than an Exposition Station would serve. Moreover, the Trousdale Station is much more central to all the Exposition Park attractions, including the ones you pointed out, and the USC attractions than a Figureoa Station would be. How can a station be a central one if it's at the corner of both the USC and Exposition Park campuses? And, then, if you want to get technical, even with a fully at-grade line, there is not enough space (at least 350 ft needed) between Figureoa and Flower to fit a platform. It's Figueroa, not Figureoa. And as close as Flower/Jefferson is to Figueroa, it does not act as an adequate or convenient transfer point for Figueroa bus passengers. Certainly not for disabled and senior passengers. My objection was to your claim that a station at Figueroa would be "useless". It would not be useless. In my opinion, it would be a great station. You may disagree with me. But your statement that it would be useless was dismissive and rude. As I stated, Figueroa/Expo would be no further from the center of campus than the Trousdale station. A station under Figueroa (not between Figueroa and Flower, as you imagined it) would have had an entrance west of Figueroa. It would have been very useful for students. It would have been useless only to those trying to reach the west part of campus. And Figueroa/Expo would have been closer than Trousdale station to the attractions I listed, which are on the east side of Exposition Park. This station was not feasible because of cost and engineering issues. But don't say it was never proposed. It was, and it was rejected. Fine. I still wish it had not been rejected. That's my opinion. That's what these forums are for: airing of opinions, not demanding absolute uniformity of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 8, 2010 16:07:08 GMT -8
There is already a Figureoa Station to begin with -- Jefferson. Remember, Flower and Figureoa are less than 500 ft apart -- literally a stone-throw-away and only a minute and a half walk! It's no different than going to the restroom from your office. Jefferson Station serves the Figueroa corridor much better than an Exposition Station would serve. Moreover, the Trousdale Station is much more central to all the Exposition Park attractions, including the ones you pointed out, and the USC attractions than a Figureoa Station would be. How can a station be a central one if it's at the corner of both the USC and Exposition Park campuses? And, then, if you want to get technical, even with a fully at-grade line, there is not enough space (at least 350 ft needed) between Figureoa and Flower to fit a platform. It's Figueroa, not Figureoa. And as close as Flower/Jefferson is to Figueroa, it does not act as an adequate or convenient transfer point for Figueroa bus passengers. Certainly not for disabled and senior passengers. My objection was to your claim that a station at Figueroa would be "useless". It would not be useless. In my opinion, it would be a great station. You may disagree with me. But your statement that it would be useless was dismissive and rude. As I stated, Figueroa/Expo would be no further from the center of campus than the Trousdale station. A station under Figueroa (not between Figueroa and Flower, as you imagined it) would have had an entrance west of Figueroa. It would have been very useful for students. It would have been useless only to those trying to reach the west part of campus. This station was not feasible because of cost. But don't say it was never proposed. It was, and it was rejected. Fine. I still wish it had not been rejected. That's my opinion. That's what these forums are for: airing of opinions, not shouting each other down. Thanks for correcting my spelling of that name. No one can pronounce or spell it right and I've always hated it ever since the first time I saw it. No matter where you put the station, it requires walking. People who can't walk either don't take transit or use a wheelchair/scooter. A Figueroa Station would be further away from both the USC attractions and Expo Park attractions when you average over these attractions, because of simple geometry that a corner of a rectangle is further away from its center than a point at the middle of its side. (And, no, Tommy Trojan is not the center of the campus as far as a population center is concerned.) Flower and Figueroa are only a very, very short block form each other, as I said, only about a minute of walk. So, why would you put a station further away from activity centers just to save some bus-transfer passengers a minute of walking? And, yes, the cost of a Figueroa subway station would be astronomic, and it wouldn't be justified for saving a minute of Figueroa bus riders, yet still costing time for the USC and Exposition Park riders. I don't remember a serious discussion of a subway station in the EIR but please copy and paste it here as a JPEG image or simply provide the link. I will be interested to see it. Many things are proposed in the early stages of the EIR. In fact, even personal rapid transit (PRT) was proposed for the Expo Line. In fact, thinking further, a subway station wouldn't even save any time at all for the bus passengers because of the change of grade. You need to change grade (at-grade vs. below grade) when you transfer from bus to a subway -- that's another minute or two of walk up and down and stairclimbing. So, a Flower/Jefferson Station is probably at least as fast or faster for the bus-transfer passengers than a Figueroa/Exposition Station. Light-rail wins here "metro"center. So, don't be so "metro"centric. OK, I'm just kidding, not trying to annoy you. Have a nice weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 13, 2010 10:32:19 GMT -8
The official settlement meeting was postponed a week to Friday, January 29, 2010, 11 AM, at the request of Fix Expo. With LAUSD and Expo having reached an unofficial settlement between them, I'm guessing Fix Expo will remain as a thorn and not accept anything other than an underground train, for political reasons as we know. But, perhaps, I'm wrong and even the Fix Expo and NFSR crazies might come to common sense.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 13, 2010 14:10:25 GMT -8
I would guess Fix Expo wants the extra time to lobby the folks at LAUSD to reject the deal.
Or maybe, they just wanted one more week to exist, before they fade into obscurity as a historical footnote.
|
|