|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 26, 2008 22:19:13 GMT -8
I've argued before: Metro's LRT and HRT trains should be referred to by their final destinations. Examples: "next train to Downtown Long Beach", or "to Azusa", or "to North Hollywood". The destination should always be a city or major area. If necessary, the destination can be made more specific by adding the station name. Examples: "this train is bound for Long Beach (Willow Station)" or "Destination: Mid-Wilshire (Wilshire/Normandie)
This is how BART is: you board the "Colma-bound train", or "Livermore train". It works because the route of the train is defined by two things: the current station, and it's final destination. IOW, naming the train by its final destination gives riders all the information they need to know.
You only need named lines (like in London) if you can get from here to there via different routes, i.e., if you have loops. I don't think we have that to worry about in L.A. any time soon.
Route names and/or colors are good for branding. And I don't have a problem with them, as long as they don't cause confusion, and as long as the train's destination is announced and displayed for every train.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 27, 2008 4:12:10 GMT -8
somehow, the conversation got off on the wrong track (ho ho) and we got talking about rapid buses instead. honestly, they can do whatever they want with the buses, I don't care. That's too bad, because buses account for 80 percent of Metro's boardings. Metro was very good about the color-coding when the Rapid branding was introduced -- notice my careful choice of words; that's because almost all Rapid lines are just rebrandings of limited-stop buses that existed before. It was even going well through the first year of the color-coded service. Everything kind of unraveled once the 45-foot buses and artics were introduced. All of the 45-footers and all but about 70 of the artics are in Rapid red. Divisions had to displace 40-foot Rapids to make room for the larger buses. Also, it would be unfeasible to take the 40-foot Rapids out of service just to repaint them to local orange. The colors are not decals, which ironically would have made the whole process cheaper and easier. As for the trains, it would not be a good idea to paint the subway cars red and purple. Operationally, you'd have the same trouble of having mismatched trains to lines. You'd also make scheduling's lives hell. Right now, during off-peak hours, a Red Line train can come to Union Station and go out as a Purple Line train, so the work runs tend to even out throughout the day. If you had to paint trains, the Purple Line operators would do twice the work of the Red Line drivers, since a trip to Wilshire/Western takes half the time.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 27, 2008 8:22:19 GMT -8
somehow, the conversation got off on the wrong track (ho ho) and we got talking about rapid buses instead. honestly, they can do whatever they want with the buses, I don't care. That's too bad, because buses account for 80 percent of Metro's boardings. hmmmm. okay, so somehow you cut my comments in such a way that it sounds like I don't care about the buses. just to clarify, it's NOT the buses that I don't care about. it's the color-coding/ branding of the buses that isn't of interest to me. seriously though, that 80 pecent figure, while undeniably true, doesn't have much bearing to the subject of whether the MTA should "brand" its bus system. and why precisely does the bus system equal 80 percent of the total? because there are dozens of bus lines and "only" five rail lines, of course. the only real questions should be: what purpose does branding serve, and can branding be done easily and reliably. on the first question, branding is clearly a winner. branding makes it easier to identify a product, whether that product is a bus or a box of cereal. anything that makes it easier for riders to know what sort of bus they are riding or which train they are on is a good thing. on the second question, regretfully it is starting to sound like that the MTA is incapable of handling such matters. so, that clearly leads to a third, follow-up question: since the MTA can not handle the task of keeping its red, orange and blue buses straight, perhaps we should phase-out the three colors, thereby eliminating the possibility of mismatchs?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 28, 2008 4:17:42 GMT -8
That's too bad, because buses account for 80 percent of Metro's boardings. hmmmm. okay, so somehow you cut my comments in such a way that it sounds like I don't care about the buses. just to clarify, it's NOT the buses that I don't care about. it's the color-coding/ branding of the buses that isn't of interest to me. Apologies for taking the quote out of its context. Credit Kymberleigh Richards for pointing out this fact: Our rail lines account for less than 10 percent of system mileage yet carry 20 percent of all boardings. That's a testament to rail's productivity. The figure, though, may be going closer to 25 percent for rail and 75 percent for buses. In terms of pure boardings, three of the top five lines in L.A. are rail. Personally, I'd welcome it. The branding was a triumph of marketing but an absolute nightmare for operations and maintenance. When Metro switched to the single orange stripe livery in 1996, it was done to bring down maintenance costs and lag time. This was undertaken the summer before the consent decree. It would be cheaper to paint in one color, and it reduces the man-hours the bus would be in the body shop. Metro also did not make painting a priority -- the buses would only be repainted as part of overhauls or rehab work -- so it took five years before the buses were completely in the new paint scheme. Just a year after the buses were painted, Metro agrees to the color-coding of buses as a brand strategy. It was centered around the Rapids already being red; now the locals and express buses need their own identities as well. So, Metro has to repaint its fleet just a year after it had completed a five-year task to repaint to save costs. Now, Metro also has to repaint the buses in the most labor-intensive, complicated livery L.A. ever had. Then comes Metro's purchase of larger buses for Metro Rapid service. There's now a surplus of 40-foot Rapid buses, and rather than waste time and money on another trip to the body shop, Metro will just mismatch the colors. The downside is Metro looks stupid. The upside is Metro doing the right thing by mismatching because adhering to the marketing style would lead to a fiscal and scheduling fiasco. As for the rail lines, coloring would be a good idea, but not in the subway. We have to mind that subway runs are scheduled to alternate between Red and Purple when a train pulls in to Union Station. As for the light rail lines, we could go to decals to mark colors. Then we'd go to a single standard when the downtown connector is built.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 29, 2008 11:01:37 GMT -8
you know, it's funny. I can't really deny that color-coding or branding or marketing is expensive and difficult to maintain on a tight budget; and I sense that this conversation has reached the point where all possible points have been made and we're just going to keep swirling around in ever-shrinking circles until one of us gets tired... and yet, it's sad that American public transit has reached such a point that we can't afford to do such things, because I truly do believe that marketing, branding and other efforts are important to grabbing hold of and KEEPING those newbie neophyte "OMG, I can't believe it's $4.50 a gallon" customers. it's like how in the L.A. Downtown News, somebody was complaining about the smell.... well yes, but what are we going to do about it, spray air freshner in the subway? and then the thought occurred to me, well, why not? other than the lack of money, that is? it's the same thing with Gold Line to Azusa vs. Expo Line Phase II.... we could probably afford to do both IF the November tax measure passes..... but really, a properly financed system wouldn't have these sorts of stupid problems.... that's all from me for now
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 29, 2008 14:58:14 GMT -8
I thought the Blue line and the Green line share trains, so painting them blue or green will not make much sense after all, but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 29, 2008 21:15:33 GMT -8
I thought the Blue line and the Green line share trains, so painting them blue or green will not make much sense after all, but I could be wrong. they have shared trains. considering the MTA's current fiscal circumstances, it wouldn't be cost-effective to paint them blue or green. of course, there is a huge difference between "wouldn't make sense" and "not physically possible" Japan Railway's Chuo and Sobu commuter train lines share much of the same tracks and the same stations, with the Chuo line trains painted orange and the Sobu line trains painted yellow. when you get to Nakano in Tokyo's suburbs, the Chuo and Sobu lines are joined by yet another train route, the Tokyo subway's Tozai Line, which is painted blue. although all of these trains are essentially exactly alike (at least as far as electrical systems, motors, controls, signaling, track gauge, etc.), they somehow manage to keep them separate. how do they do it? I don't know. do mistakes happen? probably. most of Tokyo's subway lines connect with commuter train lines, so you will occassionally see "commuter trains" in the subway. with a Japan-sized public and private investment in passenger trains, all sorts of things that we would normally consider impossible or impractical could suddenly become commonplace. so, I'd never say "never" to color-coding, but I will admit that it would be very, very hard for the MTA at the present time
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 12, 2008 21:38:09 GMT -8
The silver/grey looks awesome on this Gold Line Train. ;D I love the art deco white stripes at the front of each car.
|
|