|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 9, 2010 16:39:29 GMT -8
Problem is that people in LA would rather see the nice open space next to a train station for parking (asphalt) than a housing complex or office building which would be a destination for people. Well part of that problem is that many people in L.A. are born and raised to think that (1) density is evil, and (2) parks are expensive luxuries that attract crime. Having become so accustomed to car culture, the idea of quality urban planning does not come naturally to Angelenos like it does for people in other parts of the world. When it comes down to it, planning a station area is simple. So simple, in fact, that it boggles the mind that we in Los Angeles so consistently get it wrong. Neighborhood stations should not include parking. That should be most stations. Only certain stations should be designed as park-and-ride stations to accommodate regional commuters. People lucky enough to live within a mile of a station should (no offense, people) get off their fat ass and walk to the station. Everybody else should drive just a wee bit farther, to avoid trampling actual transit-oriented neighborhoods. As for the station area, it also is very simple. A good residential transit station should include a small green park with paths leading from the entrance to the places people want to go. Surrounding this park should be a residential/retail mix that is slightly more dense than the surrounding neighborhood. Street crime will of course will always be an issue, since to solve it we would need cops at every station and cameras everywhere. But a well-lit street that attracts lots of pedestrians is a really good place to start. Rather than abandoning every street to the automobile, what if we were to widen the sidewalks a bit, at the expense of the roadway? And what if we actually spent just a tiny bit of money on streetlamps that light the sidewalk, rather than just the roadway? How about street trees and bike facilities, added not as an afterthought, but as an integrated feature of the street, as important as sewage drains?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 9, 2010 17:25:20 GMT -8
I understand elray's point but he also mentions a mindset that is fairly typical in LA (not saying this is elray's mindset but he raised the point). We expect transit to "work" for us rather than changing our behavior to "fit" transit. Take myself for example... when I was looking for a house, one of the main requirement was that it should be located within walking distance of a Rapid bus stop. I made that a requirement and as a result, I live within a 5 minute walk to Rapid 3 stop on Lincoln. I'm very pleased with my access to transit because of that decision. If you decide to live in area inaccessible by transit, you can't expect things to change. You have to change. I guess this is really an uniquely American entitlement attitude that transit must bend to my will and not the other way around. I lived in a couple of different countries before and people always consider access to transit in where they live... and property prices/rent tend to be somewhat enhanced (or diminished) based on this factor. Here in LA (and the US in general I suppose), property prices/rent bears no relation to transit accessibility
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 9, 2010 17:54:26 GMT -8
I commented on another website that the true test of a transit enthusiast would be if he or she won the MegaZillion $$$ lottery, would said enthusiast continue to ride buses and trains, or would that person "go over to the Dark Side" and travel about in a chauffeur-driven limo or an exotic sports car? One could go back to the 1930's and Huey Long's slogan "Every man a king". And if you're the king, you don't wait around for a bus or train, you have your "royal coach" (even if it's a 1995 Honda Civic and you have to drive it yourself).
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Dec 9, 2010 18:01:58 GMT -8
Well part of that problem is that many people in L.A. are born and raised to think that (1) density is evil, and (2) parks are expensive luxuries that attract crime. Having become so accustomed to car culture, the idea of quality urban planning does not come naturally to Angelenos like it does for people in other parts of the world. When it comes down to it, planning a station area is simple. So simple, in fact, that it boggles the mind that we in Los Angeles so consistently get it wrong. Neighborhood stations should not include parking. That should be most stations. Only certain stations should be designed as park-and-ride stations to accommodate regional commuters. People lucky enough to live within a mile of a station should (no offense, people) get off their fat ass and walk to the station. Street crime will of course will always be an issue, since to solve it we would need cops at every station and cameras everywhere. But a well-lit street that attracts lots of pedestrians is a really good place to start. Density isn't evil, it just tends to be ugly, especially in the TOD forms. I don't know how I'd live in any of the asshatted 5-story perpetual corridor monsters they've built. Few buildings with elevators appeal to me. Not worried about street crime at stations. That can actually be addressed, if MTA wants to, since they have their own jurisdiction, though the trend towards fare gates is a bad omen. No, it is the regular, urban street crime between "home" and the station, at any hour of the day, and especially after sundown, which Los Angeles simply doesn't address in neighborhoods like University Park. Telling folks to get off their butts and walk a half-mile ... well, I agree in principle, but I'm not one to tell others how to behave, and I certainly don't want the state doing it. And again, in 90007/90018 - two of my favorite zip codes "with potential" (for a house/duplex), walking is a risky proposition for average person with the means to drive.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 9, 2010 23:01:38 GMT -8
Unless we move closer, doubtful it will take us anywhere. In 1999, I lived within "walking distance" (as defined by her) of a station. With the 2010 design, we are not. It would have been useful to go to events at Staples / Nokia / LA Live or USC Campus, but with parking at $7-10, the surrounding neighborhood still evolving from its Blade-Runner roots, and the desire to stop at La Barca en route, paying $12+ for day pass fares and waiting for late-night service has no appeal. Even with intense gridlock, driving wins out - especially when you factor in the return leg - for us, late at night, when we're tired and want to get home - 20 minutes on the freeway versus 90+ minutes waiting for infrequent service more than offsets the potential of saving a few minutes inbound. How about paying $1.50 for a one-way ticket each ($3) and then taking a taxi cab home? Taxis are a great source of public transportation too! My wife and I love riding our bikes at night. No traffic, nice and cool. Bike to the nearest station; no need to wait for an infrequent bus.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 9, 2010 23:06:26 GMT -8
[in 90007/90018 - two of my favorite zip codes "with potential" (for a house/duplex), walking is a risky proposition for average person with the means to drive. It may feel that way, sure, but I doubt it is objectively true. Almost 40,000 people are killed driving every year. How many people are actually robbed by strangers while walking down the street? Sure, there is crime in some neighborhoods, but much crime in Los Angeles is one gang or drug dealer against another. The risk of "walking down the street", even after dark, for the average person, is mainly the risk of being HIT BY A CAR. Of course, that can happens when you drive, too. Subjective safety is a real problem for getting people to ride transit, but I do not believe it is a true problem. The great safety record of buses and trains (for their passengers) overrides any risk of walking a few blocks.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Dec 10, 2010 12:03:28 GMT -8
[in 90007/90018 - two of my favorite zip codes "with potential" (for a house/duplex), walking is a risky proposition for average person with the means to drive. It may feel that way, sure, but I doubt it is objectively true. Almost 40,000 people are killed driving every year. How many people are actually robbed by strangers while walking down the street? Quite a few more. In fact, a lot more. A heck of a lot more, per DOJ. But I don't think its a legit comparison. I've "survived" such assaults. Being hit by a car is probably physically worse, whether you live or not. I'll take the psychological/emotional hit over the physical - but that's just me. Subjective safety is a real problem for getting people to ride transit, but I do not believe it is a true problem. The great safety record of buses and trains (for their passengers) overrides any risk of walking a few blocks. Believe me, I understand the concept of "fear" versus reality. In business every day, we sell based on perception, not reality. And in the neighborhoods of Expo I, while perception may be worse than objective truth, the reality is still bad enough to impact the minds of a majority of potential new riders, or in my case, whether or not we [can] buy a house and lose a car. I suppose you haven't experienced violent crime as I have, more than once. I still walk the streets everywhere without fear - but I wouldn't expect my sister, mother, or their kids to do so, when visiting me in the aforementioned neighborhood. The "great safety record" of the transit method, in no way overrides the neighborhood risk, nor is it fair to make the comparison. Being injured by a car is generally an accident, or at worst, an act of negligence. The other experience is an intentional criminal act. We aren't speaking of "a few blocks" for most people. metrocenter suggests we walk a mile to the station - perfectly ok with me, if it "feels" safe for everyone. Yes, subjective safety is a problem, if you want universal support for transit, for the long term. Congrats that your wife rides bikes and buses. Must be nice.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 10, 2010 12:32:00 GMT -8
Elray: Thank you for making the comparison between "accidents/negligence" and "intentional criminal acts." (a bit off topic, but bear with me) In a way it's like the "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" argument--my observation is that "Guns make it EASIER for people to kill people." Getting back to transportation (and especially the Blue Line): Presumably after reading an article about "Man Killed by Train" George Carlin commented: "This item demonstrates how stupid the average American is. Every ninety minutes someone is hit by a train. A train, okay? Trains are on tracks; they can't come and get you. They can't surprise you when you step off a curb. You have to go to them. Got that?"
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Dec 10, 2010 12:48:08 GMT -8
I live at 20th and La Brea, and if anyone can point me to a source of collected date on traffic accidents between the 10 and Washington on La Brea in the last year, I'd buy them lunch.
While I've lived in my house, there have been multiple accidents wherein a car flying up La Brea (heading north) has had to swerve, and has either damaged or completely taken out the light pole that sits at the north-east corner of 20th & La Brea. Once, the car was going to fast that they were able to get all the way up onto the lawn of the house that sits on that corner.
One of the things that holds me back from making plans to walk/bike with my wife and kids down to the La Brea station is that cars are flying off the 10, and the current cross-walk system is not well attended do in in the areas between Washington and Jefferson. Not to mention the fact that the on & off ramps of the 10 are trash-ridden campsites for the homeless.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 10, 2010 13:33:18 GMT -8
I live at 20th and La Brea, and if anyone can point me to a source of collected date on traffic accidents between the 10 and Washington on La Brea in the last year, I'd buy them lunch. Here's a link that will get you Los Angeles County or City-wide traffic fatality statistics (but not cut as finely as you're seeking). Click the top tab for "Query FARS Data"; select a year and click Submit; select boxes for City or County, Number of Fatalities in Crash, and Person Type (if you'd like pedestrians and/or cyclists). You should be able to find your way throught the rest. For 2009 it shows 636 traffic fatalities in the City of Los Angeles -- about two every day -- including 88 pedestrians and 5 bicyclists.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 10, 2010 13:37:04 GMT -8
As for the station area, it also is very simple. A good residential transit station should include a small green park with paths leading from the entrance to the places people want to go. Surrounding this park should be a residential/retail mix that is slightly more dense than the surrounding neighborhood. Exactly! Here's my favorite station approach, in South Pasadena:
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 14:11:35 GMT -8
expolinefan, I like this effort. I did some checking and here is what I would add or suggest...
1. It looks like doing the "merge" South of Pico is doable. If you assume that the line could have a maximum of 5% upgrade (same as La Cienega grade) going North to be 16' high when it reaches Pico, then the required distance would be 183 feet. That is mostly if not all the parking lot that you show at the SE corner of Pico/Flower. Cameron Ln would have to be closed to traffic if it isn't already. Just checked, it looks closed.
2. The section that you show in white with 4 tracks is only about 160 feet long, way too short for even a 2 car train. Since they run 3 car trains on the Blue Line, I would think that you would want to support 3 car trains, especially given the large events.
3. Since the entire convention structure North of Pico is going to go away anyway, and since you are putting the effort in to elevate the tracks to get closer, why not just go the extra couple hundred feet and put the station right on the NW corner of Pico and Figueroa? That gets you right to either Staples or the Stadium. I'll try and draw a map up, unless someone beats me to it.
4. I really like the idea of 4 tracks and 2 platforms. One platform could be for Northbound trains and the other for Southbound trains. When the RC is up and running, you could even divide it further and have: P1T1 Expo North, P1T2 Blue North, P2T1 Expo South, P2T2 Blue South. This would help keep platform crowding to a minimum.
Operationally, I think that it would work like this. During key event times (i.e. before and after), all trains would stop at the new station. Northbound trains would take the aerial in, stop and pick up or let off passengers, then back out onto the tracks and resume Northbound running. Southbound trains would go past the turn off, then back into the station, then resume their Southbound course.
Assuming that this is technically feasible, and you would think that it would be, the only constraint that comes to mind is that the new station not impact the current running headways.
Most events would be weekend or evening events (Lakers/Clippers), so I'll use that as an example. Evening headways are 10 minutes, and weekend headways are 20 minutes. With both the Expo and Blue lines running 10 minute headways, each train has 5 minutes to enter the aerial section, do the loading/unloading, then get back out onto the main track.
That would be one train leaving the station every 2.5 minutes, or every 150 seconds. If a 3 car train has a capacity of (144*3)=432 people, then you can move people in/out at a rate of almost 3 people per second, or about 170 per minute. And thats just running the normal schedule and diverting all trains to the new station. In the hour before or after a game, you could move 10,000 people. If capacity is 72,000 then a hour before and after you could move 14% of the attendees in/out. You could probably reduce the headways further if you had automatic train control doing all the actual movement to keep it clock like precise. Running 8 minute headways gets you to 13,000 people per hour versus 10,000 at 10 minute headways.
Also, the station MUST be elevated. The LRT at the SF baseball park is almost less than useless. After a game, there are so many people/cars milling about that the trains can't even get priority to move through. Totally defeats the purpose of even having a train serve the game(s).
I am assuming that during normal operating hours the new station will be bypassed, and only the current Pico station would be served as it is now. The current station would also be stopped at during events.
Upside is no changes are required to the current Pico station. Downside is that there is a considerable cost associated with building this. Biggest upside is that you get an absolutely state of the art transit station about 200 feet away from the CC, Staples and the new stadium, with a one seat ride (post DC) to either Santa Monica, Pasadena, Long Beach or East LA.
How could they not do this?
RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 15:08:00 GMT -8
Here is what I came up with. The platforms are about 270 feet long, plus another 50 feet, and about 80 feet wide. The total length of the track is about 1100 feet from the end of the station till it connects with the current line. Any construction engineers care to let us know what this would cost? And how it fits in the larger site picture. I really think the size in terms of the overall site is just right. The large site allows for the station to be put right there in the corner and not interfere with the stadium construction. And also shows how beautifully it serves all 3 venues...
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 10, 2011 16:26:57 GMT -8
Here is what I came up with. The platforms are about 270 feet long, plus another 50 feet, and about 80 feet wide. The total length of the track is about 1100 feet from the end of the station till it connects with the current line. Any construction engineers care to let us know what this would cost? And how it fits in the larger site picture. I really think the size in terms of the overall site is just right. The large site allows for the station to be put right there in the corner and not interfere with the stadium construction. And also shows how beautifully it serves all 3 venues... So we are going to tear down part of the Convention Center to put in a temporary rail terminal that will only serve half of the regional rail lines? Something about this just doesn't sound cost effective. Here's some other suggestions that Sierra Club and Metro Staff could consider for alignment and actual operations; la.streetsblog.org/2011/06/23/sierra-club-pushes-for-transit-plan-for-farmers-field/
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 17:01:39 GMT -8
I see the Venice crossover, and it looks like it is just NE of Venice. So, we both have the split NE of both Venice and the crossover. As for 5 platforms, hmmm. I was just imagining two. If you had the lower tracks (meaning Southern two) for the Southbound trains and the upper tracks (meaning Northern two) for the Northbound trains, I think 2 platforms might be OK, if they were wide. There will be a Northbound train every 5 minutes, alternating between the two tracks on either side of one of my platforms. You could have a crowd gathered for one train waiting, while the other train is loading. Same for the other platform. I think that this would work because most of the people will also be going in the same direction, either mostly arriving or departing. If you had large numbers going both directions, then I could see them needing to exit on one side while the departers load from the other side. Some airport people movers I have been on work like that. I guess the next step in the process is actual platform design One thing that would be needed for sure is probably at least 4 elevators. Large ones that can move quickly. I would put those at the far West end, and enough escalators to move people on/off the platform quickly. Preferably reversible, so all but one could be going in the desired direction. And since I'm spending AEG's money, we need it to be safe, fast and reliable. So, we block off the platform edge with a wall that only allows people to enter the trains through doors that open only when the train arrives. That keeps the drunken Raiders fans off the track when the train arrives. RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 17:16:17 GMT -8
If the train can average 7MPH on the new 1,100 foot section, it can get there in about 1m45s, another 1m45s to get out, and you have 1m30s left to load the people which is probably more than enough. You can even take out another 10-15 seconds for the operator to engage the "automatic sequence", and for the switch(es) to throw.
NB trains would have one switch at the start of the ramp, and a second at the top right before the platform. SB trains would have two switches at the bottom (the second going across the NB track), and one at the top. Those will be some busy switches on game day. I wish I had a CAD program to draw this up nicely...
RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 17:28:23 GMT -8
I also think this would be less disruptive to current service than if you tried to rebuild the Pico station. You would need to eat into the street to make Pico more accessible, and then also build some kind of dedicated walkway to the stadium. And if you still have Pico at ground level, with extremely high traffic, you are looking at terrible conditions like at SF. Especially if the streetcar ends up coming down Pico which is one of the options. The aerial extension can be built with no service disruption until the very end, when you tie it into the main line.
The cost of this should be calculated as the incremental cost above that of just expanding the Pico station, which would have to be done anyway.
RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2011 20:50:55 GMT -8
So we are going to tear down part of the Convention Center to put in a temporary rail terminal that will only serve half of the regional rail lines? Something about this just doesn't sound cost effective. Jerard, If they build the stadium, that entire block is going away (everything North of Pico), except for Staples Center. The rail station that I show would be a permanent station. If we can get AIG to foot most of the cost, it would be a pretty sweet deal. If by some chance they don't remove that section of the CC, then you turn my drawing 90 degrees clockwise. RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 11, 2011 7:30:32 GMT -8
I will post and modify, since I just lost a bunch of typing due to an automatic logoff... Jerard, Good link, I had not been previously aware of precisely what the Sierra Club was looking for transit wise from the stadium project. It looks like you were on the committee that put together the presentation that you linked to. Just for the record, I am also a lifetime member of the Club. Here are my thoughts on the presentation, and the 4 alternatives that are given. Sorry if I get a bit wordy, I just finished a Venti Starbucks and am getting spun up for the NFL season opener Page 4, solution 1: Construct additional platforms of wider width to improve passenger loading and reduce passenger discomfort, thus speeding LRT operations.Problem statement sums it up nicely, and the solution is on the right track. Page 4, solution 2: Include additional storage tracks within the station area to facilitate immediate introduction of rail service after an event.This is where we may begin seeing things differently. Laying track is expensive, even more so if land is not readily available, and provides limited additional service, and would only be used on game days. For example, say you set aside enough storage track for 4 3-car trains. With 342 per train, thats 1,300 people. If you want to achieve say 20% transit ridership to the game, then you need to move 14,000 people. The storage tracks are a one time surge that moves 1,300 of the 14,000 that you need to move. The remaining 90% of the transit users still need to be moved by regular train traffic. This is where I would argue that increased service levels, and an aerial station, will beat out the one time surge provided by the storage tracks. Page 5, solution 2: Control pedestrian movements via physical separation with a bridge or visual separation with a traffic officer.Here I would argue that physical separation is mandatory, see my previous rant about the AT&T Park in SF. Given large crowds, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. You first 3 proposals also include traffic bridges, which I will get to momentarily. Page 6 Calgary example looks pretty good. Qualcomm in SD has a similar setup. Though I would note that in both of those cases the station is closer to the park than the Pico station, which is about 1,500 feet depending on various factors. Pages 8-9 are spot on, and the streetscape improvements should be done no matter what. Concept #1: This is where we begin to differ in approach. Each of the first 3 concepts has at least one pedestrian bridge to the site. This concept is a split side platform with 2 pedestrian bridges. While we are keeping the people separate from the street and tracks, we are still tearing up the station and the surrounding tracks, all to make a larger station that will only be used part of the time. Look at how disruptive it has been to just connect the new Expo line to the Blue Line. Months of nightly and weekend closures, and it still isn't finished. This expanded Pico station construction would disrupt the busiest LRT line in LA. Concept #2: The Spanish Platform for crowd control I don't believe is appropriate in this case. Those are only useful when you have large numbers of people moving in both directions (i.e. airport people movers). In this case, 95%+ of the people are going to be moving in the same direction. So, if you build 2 large platforms, 1 for entry and one for exit for each train direction, one of each two will essentially be empty. Concept #3: Here you have a platform for each of 4 destinations, and pedestrian bridge to the site on Pico. This is getting very close to my aerial proposal, except you put the platforms on Flower and I move them to the site. This again is a large construction disruption. And, I don't believe that a minimal aerial train design would be much more visually abrasive than a pedestrian bridge. They would both have to be the same height, and a pedestrian bridge would have to be wider. My aerial design gets the platforms closer, versus the ~1,500 feet if we keep Pico where it is and just expand it. Concept #4: Pico subway station. This gets you grade separation again, but underground. The 12th and Pico street scapes would be mush more accessible in this concept. The subway could handle capacity for sure, likely as good as my aerial concept. I think the platforms would be more crowded, since if there is only a single platform for each direction then they would have 2x the number of people waiting as my aerial proposal or your concept #3. A subway has the added benefit of getting the line underground and avoiding several street crossings, which we have been contemplating ever since we realized how much train movement would be happening when Expo starts. This is my choice given the 4 you presented. Even given that, I still think that the aerial station at the site is better because it gets everyone closer to their destination (Staples, CC, Stadium) and it minimizes disruption to the current Expo/Blue lines. The aerial station would also probably be much less expensive than the subway option, but the subway does get you the tracks away from the current street crossings and the problems that entails. RT
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 11, 2011 10:42:22 GMT -8
Even given that, I still think that the aerial station at the site is better because it gets everyone closer to their destination (Staples, CC, Stadium) and it minimizes disruption to the current Expo/Blue lines. RT How would it minimize disruption to existing tracks having to build and connect an elevated flyover while keeping service in operation on the tracks in which this structure will be built on top of?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 11, 2011 10:51:53 GMT -8
I also think this would be less disruptive to current service than if you tried to rebuild the Pico station. You would need to eat into the street to make Pico more accessible, and then also build some kind of dedicated walkway to the stadium. And if you still have Pico at ground level, with extremely high traffic, you are looking at terrible conditions like at SF. Especially if the streetcar ends up coming down Pico which is one of the options. The aerial extension can be built with no service disruption until the very end, when you tie it into the main line. The cost of this should be calculated as the incremental cost above that of just expanding the Pico station, which would have to be done anyway. RT So what space are you thinking will not be taken from the Flower Street to build things like columns to hold up this elevated structure turning over the existing tracks? Space from Flower street will have to be used to get any of the solutions done anyways. And any structure over the tracks will need to disrupt service in order to keep from support bracing building this bridge from accidentally falling on the tracks and smashing on to the trains.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 11, 2011 10:56:02 GMT -8
So we are going to tear down part of the Convention Center to put in a temporary rail terminal that will only serve half of the regional rail lines? Something about this just doesn't sound cost effective. Jerard, If they build the stadium, that entire block is going away (everything North of Pico), except for Staples Center. The rail station that I show would be a permanent station. If we can get AIG to foot most of the cost, it would be a pretty sweet deal. If by some chance they don't remove that section of the CC, then you turn my drawing 90 degrees clockwise. RT this is a physically permenant station for a part-time problem and given that this doesn't reflect how the Regional Connector will come into play with this I don't see how this will really solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 11, 2011 15:00:48 GMT -8
BTW, here's a pretty good map from the Farmers Field web site which shows where Farmers Field and the new "Pico Hall" to replace West Hall are going to be, in relation to South Hall, Staples Center and the existing bridge over Pico. If this is correct, the bridge over Pico and Gilbert Lindsay Plaza apparently are still going to be there.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 11, 2011 19:27:14 GMT -8
Dedicating a whole slot for a "stub" I don't think is necessary. Just bury the rest of the Blue Line DTLA (north of the 10) underground, move the Pico Station to 11th, and build a station portal to LA Live underneath 11th street.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 12, 2011 1:30:44 GMT -8
I'm wondering which of these ideas would be the most expensive. AEG may have a lot of money, but they don't have an unlimited supply and I doubt our political leaders have the will or the legal ability to force them to spend that much Certainly undergrounding the Pico station and tracks down to the 10 freeway would do the maximum amount of good for the most amount of people, and I think that is something that may eventually need to be done. But I do wonder how well that addresses the specific issue at hand, which is getting people to/ from the Farmers Field stadium. Bringing tracks directly to the front of the convention center is another neat idea which I think isn't going to happen. It really needs to be elevated to work. The "ground floor" of the convention center is one level up at the point where the tracks would enter. Also, that would help avoid congestion at Figueroa. The current proposal doesn't give anything for people coming from the north. What's more likely is probably an extra platform or extra tracks at the existing Pico station, and some sort of walkway over to the stadium/ convention center. I would love for such a walkway to be elevated, a permanent, architecturally artistic bridge which would bring football fans and conventiongoers over to the station.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 12, 2011 6:03:34 GMT -8
BTW, here's a pretty good map from the Farmers Field web site which shows where Farmers Field and the new "Pico Hall" to replace West Hall are going to be, in relation to South Hall, Staples Center and the existing bridge over Pico. If this is correct, the bridge over Pico and Gilbert Lindsay Plaza apparently are still going to be there. James, Thanks for the link! I'm surprised that they are going to actually shoe horn that entire structure into the site. Though I do remember hearing that rebuilding the West Hall was part of the plan, what they are proposing is about the only way to actually do it given the site constraints. That would be one insanely busy construction site for years... I will have to reassess my plan given that the CC structure over Pico remains in place. A station above the Plaza seems the most likely candidate if a stub station is put in. RT
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 12, 2011 6:36:00 GMT -8
What is the world coming to when people cannot walk 2 - 3 blocks from the existing Pico station to the future Farmers Field, or current Staples Center and/or LA Live!? We are going to spend hundreds of millions for 2 blocks? Now, I am totally on the side of the Constellation/Santa Monica debate for Purple Line ($60 million for 1 block south)..that makes sense.
This, makes no sense. So, somebody standing at a Blue Line or Expo Line station south of downtown, will have to wait for every other train to go past Staples/LA Live!/Farmers Field; if they have an alternative destination not on this new stub? Farmers Field is a guaranteed 8 days a year...this is not economically viable for a whole new stub station.
Honestly, the best answer is undergrounding the existing Pico station and tracks from 11th through Washington. Close Expo/Blue Line for 18 months to get it done, if needed. Then, build an underground portal at Figueroa/11th. No need to move tracks west for 1 block. That would probably be the most reasonable answer to this dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 12, 2011 7:28:36 GMT -8
LA, While undergrounding the Pico station and all the tracks down to Washington may or may not be the "best answer", I don't really believe that you can shut down the Blue/Expo line for 18 months to accomplish that. When a rail line gets to a certain capacity, you almost "have" to keep the trains running while you build the alternative. Look at the LA freeways. All work is done at night to minimize traffic disruption, and in 99.5% of the cases you only lose a couple lanes, the freeway never actually closes for any length of time. The recent Carmageddon being one of the few exceptions, but I believe you get my point.
Assuming that you are not going to close down the Blue/Expo line for 18 months, and you still want to build the tracks underground, the question then becomes "How do you build 4,000 feet of subway under the busiest rail line in LA without disrupting current service"? The answer to that is very simple, you throw TONS of money at the project. Given the fact that the reason this is being done is primarily for the benefit of a private firm (AEG), and that there aren't TONS of money available even from said private firm, you have to start looking at cheaper solutions.
The reason I proposed the aerial stub station is pretty simple, and it addresses both problems from above, cost and disruption: 1. An aerial stub would cost probably 1/5(?) the cost of converting the current track to subway, and at the same time keeping service running. 2. There is no disruption to service at all during construction of the aerial stub, until you actually tie in the track at the SE corner of Pico/Flower. The only construction impact other than the tie in is building the section that goes over the current track, and that work could be done during regular non-operating hours of the Blue/Expo line. And that is no more than 2 weeks of work.
The link provided by James shows how dense the site around Farmers Field is. The Plaza would be the perfect place to put a stub station. We aren't using that station 8 days a year: Pro Football: 10 days USC (?): 5 days Lakers: 42 days Clippers: 42 days Kings: 40 days Concerts: ?
This is 150+ days per year, where you would use the stub for 1-2 hours before the event and 1-2 hour after the event to move 20% of the stadium capacity.
If this costs 1/5 of a subway, why wouldn't you do this? Who would pay for the subway? And the stub tracks would only be used during periods before and after events, other times the current Pico station is used.
RT
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 12, 2011 8:04:53 GMT -8
The existing Pico station is already a reasonable 2-3 blocks away - urban blocks as well! If anything, build an overpass or underpass pedestrian walkway. There is no need to extend a train 1 block west. Am I the only one who thinks this is ludicrous? So, let's say somebody is waiting at Venice/Robertson station and they want to go to 7th street......now they have to wait for every other train? I see no value in a 1 block extension. The real reason not many people take Metro to Staples ------ too much convenient and available parking. Of you had enough parking as Madison Square Gatden, thousands more would use the train. It's not a matter of a block, it's about convenience. Why do people buy $10 6 pack beer at 7-11 and nor the $6 6 pack at CostCo, because of convenience. Parking is too convenient in downtown LA compared to other world-wide cities.
No more parking at/near LA Live! (already 20,000 spots within a 10 minute walk and 500,000 in downtown LA) and more people will find the train reasonable. Building a 1 block stub west will do minimal and may hurt the convenience of thousands of other riders (confusion included).
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Sept 12, 2011 8:10:52 GMT -8
There is precedent for pocket tracks in Los Angeles. A line use to run up Highland Avenue onto the median of the Hollywood Freeway. (The streetcar tunnel is now that weird onramp which merges into the fast lane.) Anyway, at the entrance to the Hollywood Bowl the tracks would stub out and streetcars would park to accept the mass of patrons leaving after a concert. The stub area is now used by buses, but looks almost the same (without tracks) and works the same way... See this aerial google maps view: Hollywood Bowl streetcar stub
|
|