|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 19, 2011 9:51:38 GMT -8
I wish we had some of the Gold Line stations on here (Sierra Madre Village and Memorial Park) up for change as well. I think in another thread it said the public can nominate any other station for renaming. (I'm pitching for Pico/Rimpau to be renamed Crackton, but that's another day.) Sierra Madre Villa should be renamed, as it refers to a street that isn't a part of the public consciousness the way Colorado, Lake, Orange Grove or Fair Oaks are. Plus, it implies that the city is nearby -- it's not. Hastings Ranch might be a better name, plus it's associated with the nearby mall. A new name for Memorial Park would be tough, though. It does seem like seems like Hastings Ranch or East Pasadena would work much better. Sierra Madre is horribly confusing. For Memorial Park, it seems like Old Town Pasadena would work much better, although I suppose the argument could be that Del Mar is also Old Town Pasadena. Maybe Old Town Pasadena North? Memorial Park is useless. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 19, 2011 10:19:53 GMT -8
Except that NYC uses street names for the most part. They even have multiple stations with the same name and people manage. And London and Paris name it after neighborhoods. So? The "so" is that he was wrong that only smaller systems use street names. I never said that we should copy NYC. Reading comprehension FTW. I really don't want to debate London versus NYC since this is about LA, but I have to point out the obvious. London's streets are not on a grid. Not really. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 19, 2011 10:32:00 GMT -8
In London, it's much easier. The stations are named after Leicster Square, Piccadilly Circus, St. James Park, etc... You know where you are going. As a tourist, the London/Paris systems are much easier to navigate because of the station naming convention, New York is not. For LA, it's easier for non-normal or tourist transit riders to identify Pershing Square, Civic Center or Union Station. Imagine if those stations were called 5th/Hill, 2nd/Temple and Los Angeles/Alameda. You think that would be better? That doesn't tell me I'm going to Pershing Square, Civic Center or Union Station. By the way, 7th street station is unique because the name is 7th street / Metro Center / Julian Dixon. Let's ignore Dixon for now. But people refer to the station as "7th and Metro" or "Metro Center", but not 7th/Flower. See how destinations play more of a role than street names? Pershing Square itself is not a destination for anyone and it's not even the name of the neighborhood, Civic Center is strangely named since "civic center" usually refers to a city owned event center and it's also not a neighborhood name. Union station is a no-brainer. 7th street is a street name while "metro center" is a WMATA knockoff. Julian Dixon was added after he passed and shouldn't have been imo. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 19, 2011 13:30:51 GMT -8
naming stations after people is something which really ought to be done only sparringly, and then only AFTER the station's "real" name has been given a chance to develop.
California "honors" people by naming freeways, freeway intersections, bus plazas and train stations far too easily and too often.
"Chick Hearn" sort of makes sense, because you can see Staples Center from Pico station, but I've never called 7th/ Metro Center "Julian Dixon" station.
no offense to the poster who goes by the name MetroCenter, but I've gotten into the habit of calling it "7th and Metro", unintentionally at first (it's hard to say "seventh slash metro center") but now pretty much deliberately.
I think it's because MetroCenter honestly makes no sense for a transit system such as Los Angeles. There isn't a building, neighborhood or plaza nearby called Metro Center.
It makes sense in D.C., where multiple lines converge onto a single point, but our Metro is going to be very multipolar, especially once we get more lines into the Westside.
it's sort of like how American futbol teams are named stuff like "DC United", "Real Salt Lake," "FC Dallas"; it's copying traditional names, but it doesn't really make sense here.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Mar 19, 2011 15:25:47 GMT -8
For stations adjacent to major destinations, or within well-defined neighborhoods, I'd say the obvious choice is to ditch the street names. But if we're talking about a station whose primary role is for major corridor bus connections, for example Wilshire/Vermont, or better yet Wilshire/Western, then the destination there is the street name: riders are going there to catch the Vermont bus, and they probably know that. On the other hand, people going to Pershing Square shouldn't really need to know what streets it's at to find it on the metro.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 19, 2011 17:11:55 GMT -8
I like the name Culver Junction for several reasons: (a) It has the name of the city in it. (b) It's more precise than Culver City. (c) It has historical significance. (d) It gives an opportunity to create a new, transit-oriented neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Mar 19, 2011 20:10:10 GMT -8
I like the name Culver Junction for several reasons: (a) It has the name of the city in it. (b) It's more precise than Culver City. (c) It has historical significance. (d) It gives an opportunity to create a new, transit-oriented neighborhood. Quoting for emphasis! |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 19, 2011 21:53:16 GMT -8
Culver Jct. could also work if there was the possibility of another Culver City station.
If you follow Lincoln Boulevard south from Santa Monica to LAX (or north from LAX) it probably won't happen, but if you have an 405/ Sepulveda Line south from Westwood to LAX you might.
A Venice branch of the Expo Line might also work for this scenario.
Of course, the second station could end up with the name "Sony Pictures Station" or "Fox Hills Station", so it might be a moot point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 20, 2011 1:36:17 GMT -8
Since this discussion has been awakened, I will repeat a post of mine: See the official map of Downtown Culver City below. The Culver Junction Station is about 0.2 miles from the east virtual border of Downtown Culver City.  But it turns out that we are not the only people who bother to think about the name for this station:  This slide is from the presentation for the Culver Junction Transit-Oriented Development EIR. Out of all these proposed names, Culver Junction is my favorite. In the same presentation, there is a great historical aerial from 1930. Note that Ballona Creek is still natural. Now how great that is, isn't it?! Note that Hal Roach Studios are where they made the Harold Lloyd and Laurel-&-Hardy movies. The Expo aerial-station platform is where the two-car train is parked at the bottom of the picture.  And City-Data gives the detailed profile of the Culver Junction district of the City of Culver City, down to the length of the railroad that crosses it (the Expo Line that is).  Thinking back, isn't it also great that the Expo Line ended up being called the Expo Line and not by a color?  |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Mar 20, 2011 12:25:52 GMT -8
I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but in the absence of a Venice rail line, the name "Culver Junction" is potentially very misleading and confusing. It's very easy to imagine riders unfamiliar with the area getting off the train expecting to transfer just because of the word "junction," especially since it will be decently close to both the Crenshaw line and a Westwood/Overland line someday. I prefer "Culver City," although I do like the ring of "Venice and Robertson"
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 20, 2011 15:16:41 GMT -8
And London and Paris name it after neighborhoods. So? The "so" is that he was wrong that only smaller systems use street names. I never said that we should copy NYC. Reading comprehension FTW. You should stop lecturing people about reading comprehension if you have trouble with it yourself. I never said only smaller systems use street names. My point was the exact opposite - I said using street names is ok for a smaller system (the implication is that big systems NEED better naming system). NYC proves my point exactly... you don't want to name stations after streets if you have a big system, otherwise the names will start to repeat endlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 20, 2011 16:48:38 GMT -8
How is "using street names is ok for a smaller system " the opposite of "only smaller systems use street names". I was paraphrasing for simplicity, but your argument is that as Metro grows, that neighborhood/destination names would be preferred. Isn't that correct? I did use "only" when you used "is ok", but the intent is the same. Anyway I apologize if I mischarecterized your post, but my point stands.
And no, NYC is not a good example to prove your point as NYC stations aren't generally named in the manner of your original post. NYC is an example that contradicts your assertion that mature systems use destination names. In fact I can't think of any system that validates your contention. Systems seem to use various naming conventions regardless of size or maturity and I'm not aware of any system switching conventions as they grew.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 20, 2011 22:04:56 GMT -8
My point is that in a large system, street intersection names are not ideal. And yes, street intersection works best if you have a small system. NYC is a great example because the naming convention DID change. NYC subway is a combination of 3 different systems (BMT, IRT, IND) and each had its own station naming convention. The street intersections names from IRT system (e.g. 7th Ave/Broadway) were largely dropped after the merger and it now uses a mix of single street name (e.g. Wall Street instead of Wall Street/William Street), single street name and landmark (e.g. 46th Street-Rockefeller Center instead of 6th Ave/46th Street) or neighborhood/location based station names (e.g. Time Square, Queensboro Plaza, Kew Gardens, Bryan Park, Harold Square etc). There are very few stops that still has the original street intersections as its name. Most of the stations expanded/constructed after the merger uses landmark/neighborhood method rather than the street intersection method.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 21, 2011 13:37:07 GMT -8
Street intersection names may not be perfect, but there are cases where they are unavoidable. If you have more than one station in a neighborhood or more than one station in a city, intersections can be useful.
Like Wilshire/ Western and Wilshire/ Normandie, when the distance between the stations isn't that great.
The trouble with a lot of the Blue Line stations is that they aren't specific enough. Anaheim and PCH ought to be Anaheim/Long Beach, and PCH/ Long Beach.
And I'm not sure what the neighborhood/ landmark would be for PCH on the Blue Line, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Mar 22, 2011 3:49:15 GMT -8
NYC prefers street intersections because station spacing is close that any given neighborhood will contain multiple stations. Even so, some stations, especially the ones at the end of the line, get the name of the neighborhood added on, for example "Flushing Main Street", or even have the neighborhood name replace the street name as in "Far Rockaway" (Mott Ave) or "Coney Island" (Stillwell Ave).
bzcat: I don't think you're very familiar with the actual usages in the NYC Subway system, not all of which are obvious from reading the map. The "Bryant Park" station on the Sixth Avenue line is referred to as "42nd St", and while Times Square is a big and useful enough landmark, the station is announced as "42nd St - Times Square" on the north-south lines and as plain "Times Square" on the 7 line. Likewise, "Herald Square" is "34th St - Herald Square" and Kew Gardens is "Union Turnpike" or "Union Turnpike - Kew Gardens". And I'm pretty sure what's shown on the map as "63rd Dr - Rego Park" is never actually referred to as "Rego Park" by conductors or in station signage. Moral of the story is that real usages may differ from what's on the map, or just not be entirely obvious. Like "7th and Metro".
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 22, 2011 8:22:12 GMT -8
Street intersection names may not be perfect, but there are cases where they are unavoidable. If you have more than one station in a neighborhood or more than one station in a city, intersections can be useful. Like Wilshire/ Western and Wilshire/ Normandie, when the distance between the stations isn't that great. The trouble with a lot of the Blue Line stations is that they aren't specific enough. Anaheim and PCH ought to be Anaheim/Long Beach, and PCH/ Long Beach. And I'm not sure what the neighborhood/ landmark would be for PCH on the Blue Line, either. Agreed. IMO, a station name should be unambiguous, familiar and promote a sense of place. Intersection street names are almost always unambiguous, but they often fail to be familiar or to reflect the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood Watts has only one station: 103rd Street. This is why I favor "Watts" as the name of that station. There is no possible confusion, unless you don't know where Watts is. But if you don't know where Watts is, then you probably don't need to go there. The Blue Line's "PCH" station is a good counterexample. The station serves several neighborhoods, so there's no point in giving it a neighborhood name. And as you said, there are no landmarks near there, except maybe "El Gallo Giro" Mexican food. I'd prefer the name "Long Beach/PCH". The "Long Beach" in the name refers to both the city and the street that it's on. But just "PCH" is also fine, since there is no other PCH station, either in service or planned. "Anaheim" is almost deliberately misleading: it's named after a street, but without the word "Street", it seems like it's referring to the city of Anaheim. "Anaheim Street" or "Long Beach/Anaheim" would both work for me. Ditto for "Long Beach/5th Street", "Long Beach/1st Street", "Long Beach/Transit Mall" and "Long Beach/Pacific Avenue". |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 22, 2011 8:45:08 GMT -8
As for "Venice/Robertson", I could get behind "Culver Junction". The city of Culver City is huge, and Venice/Robertson only serves the northern corner of that city. "Culver Junction" is more precise, and serves to unite the area near the station, regardless of which parts are in L.A. and which are in Culver City.
Anything is better than "Venice/Robertson". Ick.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Mar 22, 2011 10:29:11 GMT -8
As for "Venice/Robertson", I could get behind "Culver Junction". The city of Culver City is huge, and Venice/Robertson only serves the northern corner of that city. "Culver Junction" is more precise, and serves to unite the area near the station, regardless of which parts are in L.A. and which are in Culver City. That's a good point. Especially because Culver City is not only big in terms of total area, but it's spread out with random offshoots.  Someone wanting to go to Washington Blvd and Centinela -- the western end of Culver City -- would not at all be well served by hopping off the Expo Line at Culver Junction 3 miles to the east. Or, at least they would need to know to transfer to a 733. Calling it Culver Junction could eliminate some of that confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 22, 2011 10:45:03 GMT -8
Metrocenter I agree with you but "long beach" in the station name could also get confusing. You'd almost have to include "blvd".
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 22, 2011 12:35:32 GMT -8
I don't know why adding "Long Beach" would be confusing, since the city is Long Beach. So, the station would be "PCH/ Long Beach" which could mean "corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Long Beach" or "Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach". Or, "Long Beach/PCH" if you prefer. It could also be "PCH/Long Beach Blvd." but I think that "Blvd." would be superfluous. It might be more confusing to add "Long Beach" to stations outside of the City of Long Beach, (Slauson, Vernon, Washington) but that's why I say each station needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. p.s. How on earth did Culver City end up with that weird appendage towards Marina Del Rey?  |
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Mar 22, 2011 13:52:57 GMT -8
p.s. How on earth did Culver City end up with that weird appendage towards Marina Del Rey? It's all because of the Barnes City Zoo and Circus: "In October 1925, Culver City sought through the ballot to annex the Walnut Park area which included a long slender shoestring piece of property along Washington Blvd to Walnut, one block east of Lincoln Blvd. It was only 484 acres (3/4 square mile), but it included all the businesses along the boulevard, and part of Barnes City where the zoo was located. The vote was 84 to 50." (c) 2006 Jeffrey Stanton. The story, an interesting one, is told in considerable detail here: www.westland.net/venicehistory/articles/BarnesCircusZoo.htm |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 22, 2011 18:05:40 GMT -8
NYC prefers street intersections because station spacing is close that any given neighborhood will contain multiple stations. Even so, some stations, especially the ones at the end of the line, get the name of the neighborhood added on, for example "Flushing Main Street", or even have the neighborhood name replace the street name as in "Far Rockaway" (Mott Ave) or "Coney Island" (Stillwell Ave). bzcat: I don't think you're very familiar with the actual usages in the NYC Subway system, not all of which are obvious from reading the map. The "Bryant Park" station on the Sixth Avenue line is referred to as "42nd St", and while Times Square is a big and useful enough landmark, the station is announced as "42nd St - Times Square" on the north-south lines and as plain "Times Square" on the 7 line. Likewise, "Herald Square" is "34th St - Herald Square" and Kew Gardens is "Union Turnpike" or "Union Turnpike - Kew Gardens". And I'm pretty sure what's shown on the map as "63rd Dr - Rego Park" is never actually referred to as "Rego Park" by conductors or in station signage. Moral of the story is that real usages may differ from what's on the map, or just not be entirely obvious. Like "7th and Metro". Thanks for the additional info. To be clear, I'm not an absolutist... it's my opinion that neighborhood/landmark names are better in general but I will also support street intersection names if it makes sense if the neighborhood is not well defined, not in common usage, or has multiple stations. For example, I don't think there will ever be a day when I will agree to changing "Hollywood/Vine". It's logical, in common usage, and institutionalized at this point. By the same token, I think Venice/Robertson is not very meaningful vs. Culver City or Culver Junction. The bottom line: The needless repeating of "Vermont", "Wilshire", "Imperial", and "Exposition" in the station names in LA is definitely not a good practice. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 1, 2011 15:18:06 GMT -8
I think Culver City is just fine as the station name, as it is the only Expo Line station in Culver City. For the record, at least Metro does note what city a station is located in on the overhead line maps posted inside of trains. I suppose the name could be more exact for the station location in the particular community inside of Culver City but I think that will ultimately detract from it is the only station located in Culver City proper. They do post bus connections to surrounding areas outside of stations though so I'm not too worry for unnecessarily confusing anyone.
I also think that the simple names are better than intersections (Red Line) but Metro could go a step further and put "Street" behind the names of streets that share the names of cities (on Blue and Green Lines) like Long Beach Ave, Anaheim St, Compton Ave, San Pedro St, Vernon Blvd, Crenshaw Blvd, Redondo Beach Blvd etc
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 1, 2011 15:24:56 GMT -8
As for "Venice/Robertson", I could get behind "Culver Junction". The city of Culver City is huge, and Venice/Robertson only serves the northern corner of that city. "Culver Junction" is more precise, and serves to unite the area near the station, regardless of which parts are in L.A. and which are in Culver City. Anything is better than "Venice/Robertson". Ick. I think Culver City is fine, as it is the only station in the city of Culver City. If anything it would be nice if my neighborhood Pico-Robertson aka South Robertson (SoRo) got some claim for this station too, we're only about a couple hundred feet from it. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 1, 2011 16:20:06 GMT -8
As for "Venice/Robertson", I could get behind "Culver Junction". The city of Culver City is huge, and Venice/Robertson only serves the northern corner of that city. "Culver Junction" is more precise, and serves to unite the area near the station, regardless of which parts are in L.A. and which are in Culver City. Anything is better than "Venice/Robertson". Ick. I think Culver City is fine, as it is the only station in the city of Culver City. If anything it would be nice if my neighborhood Pico-Robertson aka South Robertson (SoRo) got some claim for this station too, we're only about a couple hundred feet from it. I'm sympathetic to this, having lived in Pico-Robertson. But those "couple hundred feet" involve two traffic walls in the form of I-10 and Venice Blvd, so I think there's a bit more to the separation than just the distance. Then there's the Gordian knot of dismal streets around Robertson, National, and I-10 that make walking from SoRo to Culver City rather unpleasant. All that said, this is exactly the kind of thing that the City of L.A. should be on top of -- improving pedestrian and bike connections to Expo Stations -- but has managed to be completely AWOL on for both Phase 1 and 2. Lastly: Culver Junction all the way! |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 6, 2011 11:22:13 GMT -8
Los Angeles should absolutely get on board with redeveloping this area. South Robertson is pretty nice and Culver City is pretty nice but there is a swath of pedestrian unfriendly stuff in the middle dividing them and the station is in the middle of it!
The South Robertson Neighborhood Council encourages everyone in the area to get out and walk every night at 7pm every night, maybe I can persuade them to walk over to the Culver City Station and see how much they like it. Maybe then we can get the ball rolling on transitioning the station area into being more desirable.
I think instead of looking to the past we should look into the future of this one with the Culver City Station designation of this area badly in need of redevelopment. Culver Junction really is irrelevant now with only one of the two railroads of the "junction" being revived.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 18, 2011 10:54:02 GMT -8
Today at the Expo press event, when the train pulled into the westbound Western Station, the platform PA system announced that it was a "Venice/Robertson" bound train. Intrigue abounds...
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 18, 2011 13:07:34 GMT -8
^ I wonder if what you heard was the actual PA recording, or just a live person speaking for the benefit of the press.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 18, 2011 14:01:37 GMT -8
When the passenger finds out that the last stop is La Cienega, it won't matter much whether it's Venice/Robertson or Culver Junction/City. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 18, 2011 14:19:31 GMT -8
^ I wonder if what you heard was the actual PA recording, or just a live person speaking for the benefit of the press. A live speaker wouldn't have been surprising, but it was definitely a recording. The identical message played 3 or 4 times as it was pulling up. |
|
