|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 10, 2008 18:20:43 GMT -8
Thank you Jeremy, I understand that the train can't make a right angle turn and has to curve into and out of the station for optimum efficiency. That is not the issue here.
Maybe I should be more specific:
Why should the train go to Westwood and Santa Monica with no station at that location? Why are there two possible alignments for the southern Century City station? Why are there three possible alignments for the southern Westwood station?
What are the geological, geographical or practical consideration for the many options in this region?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 10, 2008 19:02:59 GMT -8
Why should the train go to Westwood and Santa Monica with no station at that location? street running option to get from century city north to westwood south. different options to study to see if its any better adding that northern sweep after westwood south Why are there two possible alignments for the southern Century City station? depends on what version of the westwood station they choose Why are there three possible alignments for the southern Westwood station? depends on the prior century city choice. plus what ever qualifications that go into choosing routs
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 12, 2008 11:42:40 GMT -8
No new developments here, just some thoughts: As you can see on the following map, Metro intends to build a separate platform at Hollywood/Highland for trains from Santa Monica. I was saddened by this, as it adds another disjoint in our largely disjointed system (think Orange-Red and Gold-Red transfers). I instead propose the following: Obviously, there are engineering constraints involved but this provides a long-term solution for a unified HRT system that directly links regions of the Los Angeles area in a large "wye." The engineering of this arrangement would in some ways be easier than Metro's proposed alternative. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 12, 2008 12:46:56 GMT -8
Mr. Walker's proposal definitely makes more sense--if the engineering challenges of installing the necessary track switches and level separations at Hollywood and Highland can be resolved. There's also the consideration of how many "Hollywoodians" will remember the sinkholes related to the Metro construction back in the 1990's and be leery of anything beyond the bare minimum of underground work. Be that as it may, a one-seat ride from N. Hollywood to the "Westside" is a desirable goal. Regarding the upper map--looks like a lot of decision-making remains to be done in the Westwood area. Anyone care to take bets on whether there will be rapid-transit rides to the UCLA Centennial (around 2028)?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 12, 2008 14:47:56 GMT -8
I should think that the property value in the new "Hollywood/East Hollywood Loop" area should really increase in value if this is ever built. I would want to live near the loop (Los Feliz).
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 12, 2008 17:17:53 GMT -8
I think this is a great idea and its definitely been suggested before although Metro eliminated said alternative. That being said this is an even better one because it doesn't bypass Hollywood/Highland. With this map you get a better perspective of the overall HRT system and its simplicity is beautiful. You can be at any of the major nodes and get to the other major nodes by a single train. The same would be true with Metro's alternative with the nodes being HH, DTLA, and Century City/Westwood/SaMo but this alternative would bring the Valley into the fold and provide a true alternative to the 405 for Valleyites for about 20 years until the Van Nuys/Sepulveda line is built when they see this line at capacity. Also, with each line having a shared segment, schedules would be easy to make uniform.
I like this. Woohoo lets buy more HRT cars for this system!
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Dec 13, 2008 18:01:27 GMT -8
Obviously, there are engineering constraints involved but this provides a long-term solution for a unified HRT system that directly links regions of the Los Angeles area in a large "wye." The engineering of this arrangement would in some ways be easier than Metro's proposed alternative. I thought the whole reason Metro is proposing a transfer at H/H is because trying to tie the Santa Monica line directly into the existing Red Line would mean halting service between Hollywood and the Valley for an extended period of time to rebuild the tunnel? I was (perhaps mistakenly) under the impression the transfer would be more like Red/Blue (and yes, I agree the Red/Gold transfer is horrible).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 14, 2008 11:06:08 GMT -8
That is my understanding, Ray.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Dec 14, 2008 18:46:38 GMT -8
I would favor a separate line that connects at the Hollywood / Highland station and goes straight down Santa Monica Blvd to the Ocean. Or would that be too much redundancy ?
I think the Westside has the density.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 14, 2008 23:53:55 GMT -8
In regards to Hollywood and Highland:
What do you suppose the mimimum closure of the Red Line would be should they actually connect the two lines allowing for continuous flow?
Couldn't much of the work be done while the Red line was in operation. They could use the existing station platform and just punch into the tube somewhere after the station. Subway cars could be single tracked to the non worked on tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 9, 2009 14:55:34 GMT -8
found in interesting tid bit about the proposed ucla station. just thought i would share it i know the cemetery is near by, but why would a statement like that be included in the FAAR? page 53
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 3, 2009 8:50:35 GMT -8
i had a not so usual red line commute this morning. from union station on to my exit at hollywood and vine, the westside extension crew [about 6 people, 2 i recognized] were having a pow wow. i could only overhear the conversation between 2 of them, they were talking about the technology of the current red line. some bits about each station along the way.
highlights: blue line, they want to expand to 3 tracks along the freight row. saying that since all freight uses the alameda corridor they would have the room. noted that this was not in the immediate measure r fund future.
tbm. for the westside extension lacmta person 1 said it when they reach fairfax it would be cheaper and easier to have the tbm continue on after the station box and just dive it into the ground. like they did under the hollywood mt [?]
speaking of westside extension. there was a bit of talk about trains every 5 min.
talked a bit about how the train operators should not need to call out station names and state the safty information posted on each car. they seemed interested in having more pre-recorded messages.
i think there was some talk about having shops in the future stations as well. but the train was loud at this point.
some discussion on hollywood and western tod, and how it was disappointingly small. praising the hight of the w-hotel complex and wilshire western as a good example of what the subway tods should look like.
i wanted to hear more, and see what there destination was going to be but had to exit.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 3, 2009 12:41:57 GMT -8
I agree the Western/Hollywood TOD is small. However, that area was pretty bad at that time, and I can't imagine them being able to get any developer to invest in something bigger.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 4, 2009 21:41:31 GMT -8
interesting that they were at least talking about having shops in the stations.
I always thought that was a good idea, even something as simple as a news-stand might be useful.
alternatively, too many of L.A.'s subway stations seem almost deliberately set apart from, rather than mingling with its surroundings, even when you have a TOD. there really ought to be better linkages
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 5, 2009 8:20:24 GMT -8
What types of business would want to open a shop in a Metro station? Unless they got rid of the "no food/drinks" rule on trains and in stations the list would be small and so would the rent.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 5, 2009 14:30:52 GMT -8
What types of business would want to open a shop in a Metro station? Unless they got rid of the "no food/drinks" rule on trains and in stations the list would be small and so would the rent. you do have a point. even a basic subway platform news stand of the sort which I have seen on Metro systems elsewhere would be in violation of the MTA's rules if they sold so much as a bottle of water or a pack of gum — which is a shame, because there are undoubtedly many tabloid newspapers and manga comic books (both of which are relatively easy to read on a crowded, moving train) which count subway riders as among their core readership. you could change the rules a little bit... make it so that you could bring non-alcoholic bottles on board a train without getting into trouble. but the littering problem would probably be immense. as for anything larger than a news stand, that would depend upon your definition of a subway station. build a subway station with a large entrance plaza, and any shops built in the plaza area might be considered part of the station, without having to adhere to the "no food or drinks" rule. tunnel passages which aren't technically part of the station (but which lead to the station) might be included as well.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 5, 2009 17:48:32 GMT -8
I would definately oppose any type of food or drinks being sold in the stations unless you want a giant dirty mess. A newspaper stand might be okay, but personally I like the stations the way they are. I'd prefer any newstands being in the corridors or on top of the stations near the entrances or possibly right near the ticket vending machines.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 5, 2009 18:13:46 GMT -8
I would definately oppose any type of food or drinks being sold in the stations unless you want a giant dirty mess. A newspaper stand might be okay, but personally I like the stations the way they are. I'd prefer any newstands being in the corridors or on top of the stations near the entrances or possibly right near the ticket vending machines. yes food on trains would be a mistake, but i dont think anyone was plaining on having a pizzahut right on the station platform. the only shops or stands that would be acceptable would be placed on the ground level or mezzanine levels. before anyone getting into the "clean room" of the station
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 5, 2009 18:24:27 GMT -8
interesting that they were at least talking about having shops in the stations. I always thought that was a good idea, even something as simple as a news-stand might be useful. alternatively, too many of L.A.'s subway stations seem almost deliberately set apart from, rather than mingling with its surroundings, even when you have a TOD. there really ought to be better linkages I would agree, although part of the problem is LA's poor pedestrian environment. There need to be more street signs showing that a metro station is just a block or two away as well. I have not been a proponet of having a Crenshaw station and have mixed feelings about the Federal station. With the savings from avoiding one of those stations I would create multi-portal stations. On Wilshire if one station is on the South side of the street I would have one on the North side, but also since the trains and stations would be oriented east-west I would have that other portal either farther east or west depending on the location. For example, I would probably not include the Federal station unless it were wrapped around some sort of park & ride with the VA. As an alternative I would have the station at Bundy, but with a portal farther east as well, which would be closer to much of the denser apartment population in that neighborhood. This would allow for more TOD possibilities and that sorry stretch of Wilshire really needs it. There is a pretty good cost to adding portals, so they must be done prudently. I think you could add an additional portal to most or quite a few of the stations for the cost of one station. If anyone has more info on that please share (i.e. average cost of a station vs. average cost of an additional portal).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 5, 2009 18:26:53 GMT -8
I would definately oppose any type of food or drinks being sold in the stations unless you want a giant dirty mess. A newspaper stand might be okay, but personally I like the stations the way they are. I'd prefer any newstands being in the corridors or on top of the stations near the entrances or possibly right near the ticket vending machines. yes food on trains would be a mistake, but i dont think anyone was plaining on having a pizzahut right on the station platform. the only shops or stands that would be acceptable would be placed on the ground level or mezzanine levels. before anyone getting into the "clean room" of the station Even gum or soft drinks would be just as bad.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 5, 2009 19:21:45 GMT -8
I would definately oppose any type of food or drinks being sold in the stations unless you want a giant dirty mess. A newspaper stand might be okay, but personally I like the stations the way they are. I'd prefer any newstands being in the corridors or on top of the stations near the entrances or possibly right near the ticket vending machines. yes food on trains would be a mistake, but i dont think anyone was plaining on having a pizzahut right on the station platform. the only shops or stands that would be acceptable would be placed on the ground level or mezzanine levels. before anyone getting into the "clean room" of the station Obviously not on the platform, but even in the mezzanine who would want to operate a shop there when the people entering can't (or won't) buy food or drinks because they can't be eaten in the system? Most of the shops that you see in transit stations are either magazine/newspaper or food related. I would advocate that riders be allowed to eat/drink on trains if it weren't for the bad behavior that I see all the time. Very often when I see people eating on the train, especially fast food, the people just leave their garbage behind. It's sad to say, but we have a large contingent of riders that will not take the slightest effort to show courtesy towards other riders. It's a combination of people not knowing any better and not caring.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 6, 2009 8:58:24 GMT -8
Obviously not on the platform, but even in the mezzanine who would want to operate a shop there when the people entering can't (or won't) buy food or drinks because they can't be eaten in the system? Most of the shops that you see in transit stations are either magazine/newspaper or food related. I would advocate that riders be allowed to eat/drink on trains if it weren't for the bad behavior that I see all the time. Very often when I see people eating on the train, especially fast food, the people just leave their garbage behind. It's sad to say, but we have a large contingent of riders that will not take the slightest effort to show courtesy towards other riders. It's a combination of people not knowing any better and not caring. hong kong is extremely capable of such things. no need to let food on trains. people do pass the very same shops on there way out of the stations.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2009 11:43:20 GMT -8
Hong Kong has nothing to do with LA. I guess it shows that it can work, but the question is can it work here? My opinion is that there will be very little interest from established businesses in renting station space. Mostly because of the perception and reality that LA transit riders don't have much disposable income. The fact that food can't be eaten on or inside Metro property is just the icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 6, 2009 12:55:37 GMT -8
Hong Kong has nothing to do with LA. I guess it shows that it can work, but the question is can it work here? My opinion is that there will be very little interest from established businesses in renting station space. Mostly because of the perception and reality that LA transit riders don't have much disposable income. The fact that food can't be eaten on or inside Metro property is just the icing on the cake. wow, not only are all the subway riders poor but we dont need to bother thinking about what works elsewhere in the world. after all, usa #1 like i said before. your just looking at one side of the coin. people do exit subway stations from time to time
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 6, 2009 13:21:48 GMT -8
Hong Kong has nothing to do with LA. I guess it shows that it can work, but the question is can it work here? My opinion is that there will be very little interest from established businesses in renting station space. Mostly because of the perception and reality that LA transit riders don't have much disposable income. The fact that food can't be eaten on or inside Metro property is just the icing on the cake. Trying to guess what retailers "think" about the income of the ridership is pure speculation. It is a fact that ridership of the Red Line is high, and there is *plenty* of money flowing out of the busy stations. Are you saying people are sloppier in L.A. than in other cities, including NYC, Chicago, London, etc.? If so, I seriously doubt that. In San Francisco, they have small vendors such as newspaper and flower stalls. At Powell, there is a hot dog vendor at the top of the escalator, and a mall (with food court) linked right into the station. Sales of food will not result in more eating on the trains. People willing to violate the law already eat on the train. They just bring their own food from outside, from McDonalds or whereever. Final point: there is already a vendor at Green Line Aviation station.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2009 17:09:31 GMT -8
Hong Kong has nothing to do with LA. I guess it shows that it can work, but the question is can it work here? My opinion is that there will be very little interest from established businesses in renting station space. Mostly because of the perception and reality that LA transit riders don't have much disposable income. The fact that food can't be eaten on or inside Metro property is just the icing on the cake. wow, not only are all the subway riders poor but we dont need to bother thinking about what works elsewhere in the world. after all, usa #1 like i said before. your just looking at one side of the coin. people do exit subway stations from time to time Yes, what works in LA is more of a factor than what works in Hong Kong. It has nothing to do with the "USA #1" or even the USA. It's a matter of what works here. Now I'm not saying that it can't work, just that I'm skeptical that there is much interest.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 6, 2009 17:21:13 GMT -8
I instead propose the following: Just wanted to quote this wonderful image again. How grand it would be. Is anyone thinking about proposing this at the meetings? Forcing a transfer at Hollywood and Highland seems like a bad idea to me. Closing down Hollywood and Highland to do construction would be painful, but after it's done this subway would be a glorious system.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2009 17:22:06 GMT -8
True, but we have indications of what retailers think in general. Look at the difficulty in getting advertisers in stations and on the sides of trains. Look at how no one rushes to take advantage of retail space next to and on top of stations. Plus IINM Metro reported a couple of years ago when they looked at retail in stations that they thought that the food and drink ban would be a problem.
I don't know. I'd say that we're like NYC was 20 years ago. But the blue line can get disgustingly dirty. Something would have to change if they were to allow food. Either clean it more often, patrol it more, or...I don't know. But it's bad enough now IMO.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2009 17:25:40 GMT -8
To make it clear I like the idea of retail inside of stations and would use them and promote them and think that they were great. I just don't know that people will be lining up to operate them. There is a very great stigma associated with mass transit in LA that will change over time, but IMO we're not there yet.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 6, 2009 17:48:39 GMT -8
If mass transit riders are so poor, then why does every 3rd or 4th person on the bus or light rail have an mp3 player, a PSP, a Nintendo DS, or similar device?
No, not everybody can afford those things, but I see a lot of these expensive electronics getting a lot of playtime on mass transit. Is it just me?
|
|