|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 23, 2011 11:24:25 GMT -8
Oh, I see we had a hand in this "Photos and Graphic Images provided by Nycsubway.org, Darrell Clarke and Jerard Wright"
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 23, 2011 11:44:52 GMT -8
How about requiring AEG to provide all season ticket holders with TAP cards that are valid on the days of every home game?
Say tickets cost on average $100 each for 50,000 season seats, so AEG ponies up $1.25 of that to Metro for the TAP cards. Metro gets ~$62,500 in advance to help defray the cost of the additional transit usage on game days. The $62k is pocket change to AEG, and makes them look good for being transit proactive. Although most/many of these won't be used, some portion of the fans will use it to get to the game, which helps traffic. As a promotional device it works great too. Someone who drives to the game and tries parking downtown will no doubt give a second look at the free TAP card once they experience what will no doubt be the largest traffic fiasco to hit the area in a long time.
It's a Win, Win, Win situation.
RT
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 23, 2011 14:47:16 GMT -8
Those are some great ideas for a sad station. Pico station improvement is a must.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 23, 2011 14:56:29 GMT -8
TAP cards, whether provided on game days or hopefully the TAP cards that people already own would obviously solve the "ticket queue" problem.
It would also help if people bought Day Passes or Round Trip tickets, since those wouldn't be purchased on the way out of the game, but on the way to the game, at whatever your "home station" might be rather than at Pico.
However, that would just solve part of the problem, as I think you would still have a flowing mass of people walking from Staples Center or from Farmers Field after games. For that, I would think a well-designed pedestrian bridge zooming over the cars (and streetcars even) would be useful and hopefully even a colorful addition to downtown's landscape.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 23, 2011 15:26:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 23, 2011 15:34:55 GMT -8
I like all of the ideas to an extent, but the only one that I see as feasible is split platforms. But unlike their image I think that the platforms need to be offset with the west platform south of pico and the east platform north of pico (existing). This would relieve crowding and prevent people from having to queue in essentially the same place for adjacent platforms.
I really like the idea of having a ticket area away from the platform. Jerard has mentioned that here several times.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 4, 2011 15:30:45 GMT -8
The problem with splitting platforms across Pico is that this station is also a transfer between the Blue and Expo lines, which I imagine would be a fairly well-used transfers. So by solving the problem of event-day ridership, you're introducing a problem for regular riders who want to transfer at that station. I think the ultimate solution is going to be an extension of the subway south to the junction between Blue and Expo, which will be needed if there's ever enough demand to run more than 20 tph on the shared section. Until that happens, I think it might make sense to look at widening the platform and adding more ticket machines across the street from the station to avoid queues of people waiting to buy tickets from blocking access to the platform.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 5, 2011 17:08:09 GMT -8
On season ticket bundling with transit tickets, I think going all the way to TAP card is not necessary. For one thing, TAP is supposed to be registered with a person and not transferable. Most season ticket holders will not use all the tickets himself/herself so you want the transit pass to be transferable too. AEG can do what it already does for Staples parking pass... have individual coupons for each home game - but instead of parking coupons, you get one-day county-wide EZ Pass instead (this of course means there has to be an one-day EZ pass and there has to be a way to post-date it in the future).
On TVM, there is no reason why Staples, LA Live and NFL stadium can't have TVM inside the property. Convention Center too... People visiting LA Live by car are already accustomed to pay for parking before leaving the entertainment area so this would be the same concept... add a couple of TVM next to the ATMs and by the exits in the Stadium and people can buy train tickets before leaving the game.
As for Pico station option, I think there is an opportunity to put the station underground if AEG, Metro and the City works with whomever owns the parking lot across the street to come up with a plan to develop the site. The short tunnel to extend the underground portion by 2 blocks shouldn't cost too much money. The expensive part is the underground station box. Maybe someone will agree to help build/fund the station box underground in exchange for density bonus and/or reduced parking minimum above ground.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 5, 2011 19:55:07 GMT -8
On season ticket bundling with transit tickets, I think going all the way to TAP card is not necessary. For one thing, TAP is supposed to be registered with a person and not transferable. Most season ticket holders will not use all the tickets himself/herself so you want the transit pass to be transferable too. AEG can do what it already does for Staples parking pass... have individual coupons for each home game - but instead of parking coupons, you get one-day county-wide EZ Pass instead (this of course means there has to be an one-day EZ pass and there has to be a way to post-date it in the future). On TVM, there is no reason why Staples, LA Live and NFL stadium can't have TVM inside the property. Convention Center too... People visiting LA Live by car are already accustomed to pay for parking before leaving the entertainment area so this would be the same concept... add a couple of TVM next to the ATMs and by the exits in the Stadium and people can buy train tickets before leaving the game. As for Pico station option, I think there is an opportunity to put the station underground if AEG, Metro and the City works with whomever owns the parking lot across the street to come up with a plan to develop the site. The short tunnel to extend the underground portion by 2 blocks shouldn't cost too much money. The expensive part is the underground station box. Maybe someone will agree to help build/fund the station box underground in exchange for density bonus and/or reduced parking minimum above ground. Lots of great ideas packed in hear, especially with respect to how to pull off a Pico Subway station. My one off-the-cuff thought is that there probably aren't much in the way of height/density restrictions that could be extended via bonus in that part of downtown.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 30, 2011 13:06:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 14, 2011 17:32:43 GMT -8
This is the reason why all Metro Rail station platforms have the yellow guards blocking the car couples
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 15, 2011 6:18:21 GMT -8
This is the reason why all Metro Rail station platforms have the yellow guards blocking the car couples Oh that sucks. I'm glad Metro has come up with a way to address this. I forget (since I haven't taken the Blue Line in awhile): are the yellow guards hard (like rails) or soft (flappers)?
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Aug 15, 2011 9:56:05 GMT -8
This is the reason why all Metro Rail station platforms have the yellow guards blocking the car couples Oh that sucks. I'm glad Metro has come up with a way to address this. I forget (since I haven't taken the Blue Line in awhile): are the yellow guards hard (like rails) or soft (flappers)? They're plastic poles grouped around where the car couplings are; that means there are two per platform for 3 car LRT. The poles can pivot at the base so if anyone bumps into them they don't break off. The same barriers are also on the Red Line platforms and oddly there are also two clusters per platform despite our HRT having five couplings for 6 car train (this is what I see everyday at Vermont/Sunset).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 15, 2011 21:38:41 GMT -8
At 90k, I wonder how much capacity the Blue Line really has left. Expo is going to add a little ridership and the connector will def. too. Then what? There doesn't seem to be a real solution. Not sure if double decker cars would somehow be possible?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 15, 2011 23:56:50 GMT -8
well, certainly double-decker cars would be possible, as this Tokaido Line train shows. They get most of their "second deck" by being built lower to the ground, and aren't that much taller than the regular trains, to avoid bumping the roof of tunnels... (or 7th/ Metro station). Note that there are obvious differences: Japanese train service blurs the line between commuter rail and "metro rail"; the double-decker cars are marked as Green Cars (higher class, reserved); the Tokaido Line includes rapid, express trains that skip stops (fewer stops means more time to head for the exit of a double-decker car). It seems like other solutions might be tried. Moving excess passengers from the Blue Line onto a Vermont or Harbor Freeway rail or bus line, for example.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Aug 16, 2011 0:12:51 GMT -8
All the blue line would need is a seating reconfiguration.. the line is not near capacity...
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 16, 2011 8:15:10 GMT -8
The Blue Line could also grow by getting more people to commute to Long Beach. Only half of the rush hour trains begin or end in Downtown Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 16, 2011 14:50:42 GMT -8
I like the idea of turning the seats inward.
Certainly one of Metro Rail's lines might have to do that before too long; either the Red Line or the Blue Line would be good candidates.
The only real problem is they'll get complaints, but that's a temporary problem. People are creatures of habit, but changes are inevitable as the system grows.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 16, 2011 20:48:47 GMT -8
Oh that sucks. I'm glad Metro has come up with a way to address this. I forget (since I haven't taken the Blue Line in awhile): are the yellow guards hard (like rails) or soft (flappers)? They're plastic poles grouped around where the car couplings are; that means there are two per platform for 3 car LRT. The poles can pivot at the base so if anyone bumps into them they don't break off. The same barriers are also on the Red Line platforms and oddly there are also two clusters per platform despite our HRT having five couplings for 6 car train (this is what I see everyday at Vermont/Sunset). The Red Line trains are permanently coupled into 2 car pairs so Red Line trains show up as 4 or 6 and Purple Line will go down to 2 car minimum during off peak. They only put 2 in for the couplings of 3 pairs. Strangely, this (the yellow guards) was the only way I recently noticed that the Green Line only has platforms long enough for 2 car trains (maybe they will eventually be extended like the Blue Line's).
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Aug 16, 2011 22:41:59 GMT -8
They're plastic poles grouped around where the car couplings are; that means there are two per platform for 3 car LRT. The poles can pivot at the base so if anyone bumps into them they don't break off. The same barriers are also on the Red Line platforms and oddly there are also two clusters per platform despite our HRT having five couplings for 6 car train (this is what I see everyday at Vermont/Sunset). The Red Line trains are permanently coupled into 2 car pairs so Red Line trains show up as 4 or 6 and Purple Line will go down to 2 car minimum during off peak. They only put 2 in for the couplings of 3 pairs. Strangely, this (the yellow guards) was the only way I recently noticed that the Green Line only has platforms long enough for 2 car trains (maybe they will eventually be extended like the Blue Line's). I noticed that the "married pairs" of our Red/Purple Line cars have chains linking the pairs, so that explains the lack of the yellow barriers and hence would prevent a blind person from mistaking that coupling as an opening.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 17, 2011 20:39:50 GMT -8
There's no need to remove seats on blue line trains. Just send all of the trains to Long Beach so that loading is balanced. And that's already in the works.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 8, 2011 11:43:37 GMT -8
Possibly some very good news for Pico station improvements. The California Senate and Assembly look to be approving, by tomorrow, a bill to smooth the schedule for the potential NFL stadium construction. The CEQA guidelines still must be followed, but lawsuits will be fast-tracked, and the pols are apparently negotiating some very good transit improvements too: In return, AEG has promised to make its stadium the most environmentally friendly in the NFL, and the Padilla bill would require it. Farmers Field would have to maximize public transportation and be "carbon neutral." Not as sweet a deal as the Legislature granted two years ago to a potential rival stadium in the City of Industry.From todays LA Times: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-stadium-20110908,0,7156002.column I will follow up when I hear what the outcome is. Having "maximize" and "public transportation" appear in the same sentence is always a good thing RT
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Sept 8, 2011 16:30:38 GMT -8
They should do my proposal to send Blue/expo underground before it crosses the santa monica freeway
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 6:50:34 GMT -8
The Senate and House both passed the required legislation to modify the CEQA guidelines. The Times today had several articles, but none of them mentioned transit specifically. As soon as the Governor signs the bill (expected), AEG will start signing up luxury box buyers to show the prospective team movers that they will be in the top 5 of revenue teams once they move.
The EIR will formally be released in January 2012, with approval expected in May. If no litigation, ground could be broken in June. With litigation, that could be delayed a maximum of 175 days. If this holds, we should see concrete Pico station improvement plans no later than January 2012.
One other interesting note... One of the article writers expressed an opinion that USC might also move to playing in the new stadium. And that the new NFL team might use the Coliseum in the interim 4-5 years till the new stadium is complete (2016-17 season). First I've heard of USC moving there.
The question may be one of what they consider "maximize public transportation" when it comes to the EIR. That could mean as little as giving riders free train/bus tickets to the game, or as much as contributing to the improvement of the Pico station. I would hope that a rebuilt station with a pedestrian bridge directly to the corner of the CC and Staples (South end) is part of the plan. Encouraging people to use transit without upgrading Pico would produce gridlock at that station.
RT
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 11, 2011 4:27:56 GMT -8
The question may be one of what they consider "maximize public transportation" when it comes to the EIR. That could mean as little as giving riders free train/bus tickets to the game, or as much as contributing to the improvement of the Pico station. There are two examples in California that used a parking-suppression strategy, and both do very well. One is San Francisco's AT&T Park. The other is San Diego's Petco Park. In the former, the idea was to avoid bringing more cars than necessary into San Francisco. AT&T Park is the ultimate in maximizing public transportation. Theoretically, anyone that can connect to Muni Metro at Market Street can get there. This puts all of BART within a transfer. The Caltrain terminal brings in passengers from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Also, AT&T Park has moorings for ferries. San Diego was not as ambitious, but even California's most conservative big city did something that could be considered quite progressive land use-wise. When Petco Park was being developed, San Diego didn't want an asphalt ocean that would sit mostly empty in an area of valuable land. Instead, the city inventoried how many parking spaces were available throughout downtown, and allowed the ballpark to count it toward its estimated parking needs. Petco only built a rather small on-site parking area, but the ballpark is situated near the 12th/Imperial Trolley station, and runs a game train from the old Qualcomm Stadium site, where drivers can park for free (in exchange for a $5 day pass). For L.A., I would say we do a San Diego-style downtown parking inventory to count toward parking, and then use some of the money in the near term to run Hollywood Bowl-style park & ride buses and perhaps use some of the other money as a down payment on the Regional Connector (hint: It will enable riders from the east to ride a single train to the game.)
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 11, 2011 6:28:02 GMT -8
AT&T Park is the ultimate in maximizing public transportation. Theoretically, anyone that can connect to Muni Metro at Market Street can get there. This puts all of BART within a transfer. The Caltrain terminal brings in passengers from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Also, AT&T Park has moorings for ferries. Here is the AT&T park in San Francisco: My wife and I had the opportunity to visit San Francisco twice in 2010 in order to see a couple Giants games. I booked rooms downtown in SF on Market St, very close to the ferry building. The idea was that we would take the train to the game, then leave the game just before it ended to hopefully bypass the main portion of the crowd and get on the train quickly. Here is the problem with the SF layout, and we experienced this firsthand both games, bypassing the fiasco the second trip by simply walking back to the hotel. While you would think that having the station literally "right next to the park" would be the ideal situation, it is not. The problem with it being so close is that there are so many people coming out of the ballpark on 2nd and King, that the trains get delayed. You have the following situation: 1. Literally hundreds if not thousands of people are pouring out of that corner of the ballpark. 98% of those people are going to be crossing King St, either to get to the train station, or to get wherever else they may have parked and/or walked from. They all have to cross one track, while those not taking the train cross both tracks. 2. Given the proximity of the park to the intersection, as the people come out, there is nowhere for them to congregate for any period of time, they have to cross the street due to the sheer numbers. 3. There is game day traffic on King St, bumper to bumper. 4. The exact same thing is happening at the other corner at 3rd and King. In a perfect world, the traffic coordinators would realize that getting the trains loaded and out would be priority #1. It is not for some reason. We sat in a fully loaded train watching the traffic people hold us there for at least 10 minutes while they we allowing vehicles and people to cross King St. All the while, the number of people waiting to take the train keeps increasing, compounding the problem. The proximity of the train to the stadium, the large size of the crowds, the mixing with vehicular traffic, plus the incompetent traffic control and the fans all exiting at the same time combine to make the ground level station a complete disaster. RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 11, 2011 14:32:34 GMT -8
the San Francisco situation would seem to point to the need for a pedestrian bridge or tunnel at ballparks and stadiums to avoid the problem of "too many people crossing the street." Fix that problem, and it seems like the proximity of the station to the ballpark would not be a problem. I haven't been to Petco in a while, but apparently they've added a bridge from the ballpark to the waterfront which crosses the Trolleyanother view of the Petco bridge
|
|
|
Post by carter on Sept 26, 2011 13:19:31 GMT -8
I listened in on the LA City Council Ad Hoc Downtown Stadium Committee hearing this morning, in which AEG presented some preliminary thoughts about its stadium transpo plan. The big highlight is that an AEG rep announced that it is in serious talks with Metro and LA City about adding a second platform for the Blue/Expo Pico Station and removing a lane of Flower to do so. Streetsblog live tweeted the event and has more details there: twitter.com/lastreetsblog
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 26, 2011 13:47:57 GMT -8
I listened in on the LA City Council Ad Hoc Downtown Stadium Committee hearing this morning, in which AEG presented some preliminary thoughts about its stadium transpo plan. The big highlight is that an AEG rep announced that it is in serious talks with Metro and LA City about adding a second platform for the Blue/Expo Pico Station and removing a lane of Flower to do so. Streetsblog live tweeted the event and has more details there: twitter.com/lastreetsblogcarter, I saw that tweeted this morning too. Was there any mention of the expanded station being grade separated from at least the pedestrian flow? RT
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 26, 2011 17:14:13 GMT -8
This is great news. Guessing that they liked my idea of a southbound only platform south of Pico. It's really the only location that ever made any sense without spending a ton of money.
|
|