|
Post by exporider on Mar 14, 2017 13:27:59 GMT -8
JW: You also inquired about Rapid Route 720. Here's what I've discovered/calculated/estimated: - Ridership on Route 720 has fallen from over 40,000 daily weekday riders five years ago to approximately 29,000 daily riders for the last three months. - Most of that ridership drop has occurred in the last ten months and can be directly correlated to the expansion of the Expo Line. - It looks like 25 percent of the 25,000 daily new riders on Expo (from 30,000 to 55,000) switched from the 720. - Observed trip lengths on Route 720 average almost six miles, which is very close to the average trip length that I assume for Expo. - Metro operates approximately 170 round trips on Route 720 each weekday, and I don't believe that the service has changed significantly in response to the lower demand caused by the Expo extension. - I estimate the total daily directional seated capacity on Route 720 at 23,800 (170 bus trips times 56 seats per bus times 2.5 passengers per seat (the latter factor is higher than the 2.0 factor that I assume for Expo because Route 720 serves trips to/from East LA, most of which wouldn't conflict with westside ridership)). - After accounting for the share of service provided during the peak periods, I estimate the seated capacity of Route 720 at ~11,000 daily seats. - The peak capacity on Route 720 is 68% of the peak period directional seated capacity (16,200) that I calculated for Expo. - Current ridership on Expo (55,000) is almost double current ridership on Route 720 (29,000), but seating capacity on Expo is only 50% higher than on Route 720, so the average level of service (demand/capacity ratio) is significantly better on Route 720 than on Expo. Is that enough lamp posts for you to support your next argument?
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 15, 2017 8:35:27 GMT -8
As an Engineering major, I usually like technical details but this demand/capacity crap seems tedious, TL;DR, and ultimately frivolous. Yes, Expo took riders away from the 720. Yes, both are busy. Yes, both have plenty of capcity left.
Also, all that's really needed is an extension to Wilshire/Bundy. This seems to be only thing giving merit to any extension beyond the VA, and the 720 simply doesn't have enough relative ridership coming from DTSM to warrant the subway in my opinion. Why Wilshire/Bundy wasn't chosen as the terminus is going to be one of the biggest planning blunders since the Green Line. Especially since 720 riders coming from the west are going to sit through the horrific Wilshire/San Vincente/Federal intersection just to get to subway. It's like the planners at Metro have never been down this corridor before.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 15, 2017 9:07:06 GMT -8
As an Engineering major, I usually like technical details but this demand/capacity crap seems tedious, TL;DR, and ultimately frivolous. Yes, Expo took riders away from the 720. Yes, both are busy. Yes, both have plenty of capcity left. Also, all that's really needed is an extension to Wilshire/Bundy. This seems to be only thing giving merit to any extension beyond the VA, and the 720 simply doesn't have enough relative ridership coming from DTSM to warrant the subway in my opinion. Why Wilshire/Bundy wasn't chosen as the terminus is going to be one of the biggest planning blunders since the Green Line. Especially since 720 riders coming from the west are going to sit through the horrific Wilshire/San Vincente/Federal intersection just to get to subway. It's like the planners at Metro have never been down this corridor before. Def. agree with that, at least in the short to medium term. Long term who knows. There is always something weird about the obsession with making the VA the most Western stop. It isn't accessible at all. When asked about why it is the terminus, Metro says the Long Term Plan only allowed for a subway to Westwood. Seems like with Measure M this would have been corrected and maybe it ultimately will with the excess federal funds they have secured, but I have my doubts. When asked in person about this, the planners get quiet and kind of squirrely about it. Something strange here.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 15, 2017 12:00:59 GMT -8
As an Engineering major, I usually like technical details but this demand/capacity crap seems tedious, TL;DR, and ultimately frivolous. Yes, Expo took riders away from the 720. Yes, both are busy. Yes, both have plenty of capcity left. Also, all that's really needed is an extension to Wilshire/Bundy. This seems to be only thing giving merit to any extension beyond the VA, and the 720 simply doesn't have enough relative ridership coming from DTSM to warrant the subway in my opinion. Why Wilshire/Bundy wasn't chosen as the terminus is going to be one of the biggest planning blunders since the Green Line. Especially since 720 riders coming from the west are going to sit through the horrific Wilshire/San Vincente/Federal intersection just to get to subway. It's like the planners at Metro have never been down this corridor before. Def. agree with that, at least in the short to medium term. Long term who knows. There is always something weird about the obsession with making the VA the most Western stop. It isn't accessible at all. When asked about why it is the terminus, Metro says the Long Term Plan only allowed for a subway to Westwood. Seems like with Measure M this would have been corrected and maybe it ultimately will with the excess federal funds they have secured, but I have my doubts. When asked in person about this, the planners get quiet and kind of squirrely about it. Something strange here. If there is anything squirrelly going on it is probably real estate graft (the reason officials sent the bullet train on ten billion diversion to Palmdale is all the real estate development opportunities holdings they own out there). With the veterans all dying off and not being replaced by equivalent numbers, perhaps elected officials know the campus will be parceled Off and plan on snatching up the land on the cheap and making out like bandits, a major luxury residential tower complex at the va with its own subway stop? Sounds like a license to print money
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 16, 2017 15:43:50 GMT -8
Why are we reinventing the wheel when Metro already did the ridership projection in the DEIR? media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Draft_EIS_EIR/Chapters%205%20thru%208/Chapter%207%20Comparative%20Benefits%20and%20Costs.pdfThe Alternative 2 (ending at VA) "new transit trips" is 27,615 riders The Alternative 3 (ending at Downtown SM) "new transit trips" is 35,235 riders This does not include existing transit trips that will be shifting from bus. So extending the line to DTSM will add about 28% more new ridership to the entire purple line extension. That seems like a pretty compelling improvements. And as UrbanizeLA pointed out in its article, the new ridership estimate is probably too conservative because the modeling was too Wilshire Blvd centric and probably doesn't take into enough account of Santa Monica blvd corridor transit trips between Santa Monica and Century City. The Alternative 2 "low income resident" is 27,180. The Alternative 3 "low income resident" is 32,112. So the portion from VA to Downtown Santa Monica adds 18% low income residents to the entire purple line extension. Again, seems like a pretty substantial increase and contradicts the picture someone is trying to paint about the residents in this part of town. All this class resentment and racist crap about how white people doesn't deserve transit is hot garbage. First, Santa Monica is a diverse city just like West LA at large. It's only a slightly more white than LA County, not significantly so. But the fact that we are arguing about this is ridiculous. Second, a Wilshire subway benefits everyone that travels on that corridor, not just people who live in Santa Monica. If local slow-growth NIMBYism disqualifies transit investment, then I guess we better stop planning the Sepulveda Pass rail because Sherman Oaks HOAs are all anti-growth and there is no plan to upzone because of Sepulveda Pass rail. Why the double standards? People who travel on Wilshire Blvd deserve transit that works no matter where they live (in Santa Monica or not). Third, Wilshire and Expo/Pico are two different travel corridor - relatively few people will ride any transit service end-to-end so this obsession with the terminus Purple line in Downtown Santa Monica is a stupid exercise in faux geographic anxiety. And Metro's DEIR ridership analysis shows this. Edit: I will just add that I agree in general that Purple line extension from VA to Downtown Santa Monica is not one of the highest priority project. Sepulveda, Van Nuys, Crenshaw II, Vermont, and West Santa Ana are all more important. I just find it odd that someone would make an argument against it when the EIR clearly supports such investment (and remember, the EIR doesn't include any of the induced ridership coming from any of those other projects).
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 16, 2017 21:03:00 GMT -8
I would agree those five are important but I'd put purple phase iv ahead of a Vermont brt, mainly because all the brt options are poor
Also in general, that was an amazing post.
Someone suggested ending the line at Bundy and not building the final mile. That is about as colossally stupid a planning suggestion as the green line not going to lax.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 19, 2017 11:32:09 GMT -8
I would agree those five are important but I'd put purple phase iv ahead of a Vermont brt, mainly because all the brt options are poor Also in general, that was an amazing post. Someone suggested ending the line at Bundy and not building the final mile. That is about as colossally stupid a planning suggestion as the green line not going to lax. It is 3 miles from Bundy to DTSM. While we have been debating the merits of a Santa Monica Extension it is very unlikely to happen since it wasn't part of Measure M. Bundy may be realistic if we get federal funding for Phase 3, which is in doubt. I think most people would agree Bundy would be far more preferable for the terminus over the VA. That area already has the density for a station and is much more accessible via bus or bike.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Mar 19, 2017 12:07:50 GMT -8
All this class resentment and racist crap about how white people doesn't deserve transit is hot garbage. You don't have to convince us, you have to convince the board. Really, you had to convince the board six-ish years ago when they were having the sub-area equity arguments for Measure R and M spending. Also I don't think anyone said white people "don't deserve transit".
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 19, 2017 16:10:39 GMT -8
It truly is amazing that the plan did not conclude Bundy as the western terminus for stage 3; after all taxpayers were sold the "Subway to the Sea."
Are parking garages planned for the VA and a flyover from Wilshire or San Vicente? It often takes 20 minutes or more just to get to SV and Wilshire if commuting from western SM in the peak AM. And easily 45 minutes to BH.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 20, 2017 14:09:46 GMT -8
What would be really cool is if the subway station in SM had an exit at PCH level (at the base of the cliff). The more outlandish this sounds, the more it makes sense. Every major project needs to get the public on board and the major design firms could produce some startling renderings of such a terminus. I could see the line turning south just east of PCH with new pedestrian bridges to the beach. A design and plan such as this could really get the public behind it and if executed could be iconic as the Ferris Wheel on the pier. If form following function fails, just switch it around.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 21, 2017 7:54:13 GMT -8
I would agree those five are important but I'd put purple phase iv ahead of a Vermont brt, mainly because all the brt options are poor Also in general, that was an amazing post. Someone suggested ending the line at Bundy and not building the final mile. That is about as colossally stupid a planning suggestion as the green line not going to lax. The only thing colossally stupid is how far your post misses the point entirely. I suggested Wilshire/Bundy as a realistic terminus that could've been built now or in the short term instead of the VA for the last segment with real funding. Not that if funding were obtained for the entire extension to SM(Which is highly unlikely), that we should only build to Bundy. This board sometimes, Christ. EDIT: Re-reading my post, I guess I could see the impression. However, I was trying to convey I was anti VA-as-terminus and that Bundy made the most sense given funding constraints now over trying to push the entire SM extension, especially sense 720 ridership drops off after Bundy.
|
|