|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 25, 2009 3:38:12 GMT -8
They will release the Phase 2 draft environmental study as soon as the Phase 1 CPUC rulings on the two school crossings are made. (The CPUC action will be very likely on Thursday, January 29th.) They are just being extra cautious as usual so that an unexpected ruling doesn't contradict their proposed Phase 2 design. There will be many options to discuss, but one of the crucial ones will be the location of the Downtown Santa Monica Station.
There are two alternatives proposed: (1) In front of Sears Building in the Colorado Ave median at 2nd St. (2) Between 4th and 5th Streets in the Sears Automotive lot, oriented diagonally in this lot between 4th, 5th, Colorado, and freeway off ramp.
After thinking more about this, I've made up my own mind on it. I'm supporting the 2nd St alternative.
In my opinion (a) closer to the beach area the better it is. Also, Ocean Ave seems to be the main north - south access road past Lincoln, so closer to Ocean Ave the better.
(b) A 4th - 5th St alternative would prohibit any potential extension of the line in the future. This is because it's adjacent to the freeway and the station would be at the same grade level as the freeway, therefore freeway acting as a wall. I would like to see a southern extension one day toward Southern Santa Monica and Venice, perhaps on Ocean Ave/Neilson Way. Such an extension would be possible with a 2nd St station but not a 4th - 5th Station in the Sears Automotive lot.
(c) Placing the station at 2nd St would eliminate most automobile lanes there and turn that section of Colorado into a pedestrian mall. This is certainly a good thing.
So, opinions?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 25, 2009 5:50:35 GMT -8
I would think that taking over the Sears lot would also allow for a multimodal transit center. While Santa Monica did spruce up the area around Fourth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard, it would be far better if there was an off-street transit center for all the Metro and Santa Monica buses.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 25, 2009 8:38:06 GMT -8
(b) A 4th - 5th St alternative would prohibit any potential extension of the line in the future. This is because it's adjacent to the freeway and the station would be at the same grade level as the freeway, therefore freeway acting as a wall. I would like to see a southern extension one day toward Southern Santa Monica and Venice, perhaps on Ocean Ave/Neilson Way. Such an extension would be possible with a 2nd St station but not a 4th - 5th Station in the Sears Automotive lot. A street car extension is more likely for that corridor because of the length of the street blocks. I wouldn't mind that but the Sears Lot corner has stronger potential as a transit anchor to Downtown Santa Monica (in case of a Lincoln corridor line). Making Colorado into a ped mall can occur without LRT station there because of the number of visitors who may use the LRT to reach the Pier in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 25, 2009 9:22:54 GMT -8
Here are maps of the three options from last spring's meetings. First is the Olympic option with aerial terminus. Next is the at-grade Colorado option ending on the Sears Automotive Center site. Third is the Colorado-Second Street option. Conceptually I like this best, but space between the Sears and Macy's (to become Bloomingdale's) is a choke point, that would require closure of east-bound lanes on Colorado and restricts this to a two-track station. Other Santa Monica plans call for Second Street to be extended over the freeway and the historic Main Street arch bridge to become pedestrian-only.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 25, 2009 11:37:53 GMT -8
I agree with Jerard about the street cars being needed for the very narrow streets there, but otherwise I want that LRT to go as close to the beach (and the Promenade) as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 25, 2009 11:51:11 GMT -8
I would think that taking over the Sears lot would also allow for a multimodal transit center. While Santa Monica did spruce up the area around Fourth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard, it would be far better if there was an off-street transit center for all the Metro and Santa Monica buses. What's the point of turning a major, touristic station into a bus yard with idling buses with harmful emissions and excessive noise next to patrons waiting for the train? Can't there be transit-oriented development there without a bus yard and without an immediate station?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 25, 2009 11:58:34 GMT -8
I like the third option best because it's location is well-balanced between the three Santa Monica destinations: the pier, the promenade, and civic center. But this would only work if Second Street were relocated west, to turn the station area into a pedestrian mall.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 25, 2009 12:03:56 GMT -8
I agree with Jerard about the street cars being needed for the very narrow streets there, but otherwise I want that LRT to go as close to the beach (and the Promenade) as possible. That's exactly my point, Ken. This station would be the most touristic station along the line and how awful it would be to have a station somewhat in the middle of the nowhere and next to a very, very busy freeway ramp. The patrons would have to negotiate the rather heavy car traffic on 4th St to go anywhere west. Hence, the need for the "light-rail to the sea" (like the beloved subway to the sea of the LA mayor's). It's clear that the 2nd St option has some problems with space but I would much rather see these problems be dealt with rather than having the station in a less-than-optimal location.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 25, 2009 12:50:58 GMT -8
I agree with Jerard about the street cars being needed for the very narrow streets there, but otherwise I want that LRT to go as close to the beach (and the Promenade) as possible. That's exactly my point, Ken. This station would be the most touristic station along the line and how awful it would be to have a station somewhat in the middle of the nowhere and next to a very, very busy freeway ramp. The patrons would have to negotiate the rather heavy car traffic on 4th St to go anywhere west. Hence, the need for the "light-rail to the sea" (like the beloved subway to the sea of the LA mayor's). It's clear that the 2nd St option has some problems with space but I would much rather see these problems be dealt with rather than having the station in a less-than-optimal location. I see the point, but is the 2nd Street station all that much better? I am neutral on this issue so far, so I am just asking the question. 2nd Street is close to the freeway as well, which is really Expo's problem in general. In Culver City, Palms, Bundy, and down the line, Expo is always a little too close to the freeway and a little far from the local destinations, although that is what was dealt to us with the ROW in most cases. As far as 2nd Street being superior to the 4th Street location because it is closer to the beach, I am not sure I buy that argument. 4th Street is just a few minutes walk to Ocean and I believe 4th Street actually has more destinations in the 10 minute walking radius. When you get too close to the beach, you lose walking radius, because it just gets cut off. There is more in Downtown Santa Monica besides the beach, the Pier and the Promenade, so I think the big picture needs to be taken into account. Again I am not favoring 4th street over 2nd Street, but just playing devil's advocate on a few of these issues.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Jan 25, 2009 18:10:31 GMT -8
As a former Santa Monica resident, I have to say that the Sears Building gets my vote.
But before I pretend to be an expert on the matter. . . I have to ask a few questions - does anyone know the answer to the following:
1) Are there plans to re-route traffic in and out of the Santa Monica Place Parking lot? That would be necessary for a 2nd street stop.
2) Has there been discussion of demolition of that part of teh SM Place lot? A station as busy as a terminus of that line near the pier/Santa Monica would need a lot more space than I think a 2nd street station would allow. Right now, there are already swarms of tourists coming in an out of that area.
3) Has Santa Monica made any mumblings about traffic flows in the area? My main concern is that traffic in Santa Monica (especially in areas with heavy foot traffic) is really jammed tight. Closing off an already narrow Colorado/2nd area to any direction of traffic would make that situation already worse.
4) Going back to point #2 - Any thoughts on the relative safety of the options? There have been so many public safety battles over teh Expo line, I think that the Sears lot offers quite a lot more in terms of managing safety issues.
As far as making sure it's close to the ocean - a station at 4th/5th is still within view of the SM Pier. It's not any more of a hike than the 2nd street option. It also might be warmly welcomed by the new SM Place business owners.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 25, 2009 18:50:55 GMT -8
Here's the alternative of the terminus off of Colorado on the Sears Auto Center site. Modifying a post I made about a year ago: This is the best terminal because it would enable future capacity upgrades like more frequent trains (3 track layout), than the Stub end 2nd/Colorado station simply would have very little room for. That extra track has another benefit in; 1) creating a small mid-day storage location for one or two 3 cars trains and we improve our future capacity provisions and reduce the Colorado crossing impacts for storing trains during rush hour to use the added track, 2) the cost of doing that at 4th/Colorado is only a small increase compared to the 2nd/Colorado station yet it improve the large number of passengers and visitors who will use Expo Line to reach Santa Monica during the warm periods. More passengers that will need space to wait for incoming trains, purchase fares, get transit and even visitor information. 3) The Santa Monica Place plans could open up the NW corner of 4th/Colorado to visually open the SE corner terminal, or better still define a second Pedestrian promenade on Colorado (with wider sidewalks and other pedestrian friendly treatments which runs East-West to all the civic attractions; Transit, Pier, Beach, Auditorium) to complement 3rd Street which runs North-South to tie all the commercial/shopping attractions. The 2nd/Colorado option with all the other pedestrian oriented changes surrounding the west side of the station limits what can be done operationally with Expo. Mind you I like that location because of it's central location but if we could remove all the lanes for Colorado and make that a transit only street and place a three track terminal there that would be wonderful but; * That parking structure for Santa Monica Place will become a thorny issue because access to it will be limited potentially affecting the terminal operations of Expo as well as the potential as a joint use agreement for as a Park-Ride. * 2nd/Colorado station all hinges on the 2nd Street Bridge and extension of 2nd Street be built before this station opens because there will be no way for traffic to currently transition from 2nd to Main Street. As I'm typing this I had a Eureka! moment and question, the key destinations in Santa Monica are geared towards ACTIVE Walking (Pier and Promendade), what difference will one or two block(s) make if the patrons in question are already in a mindset to walk and are in an environment where walking is encouraged?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 11:41:51 GMT -8
Here's the alternative of the terminus off of Colorado on the Sears Auto Center site. Modifying a post I made about a year ago: This is the best terminal because it would enable future capacity upgrades like more frequent trains (3 track layout), than the Stub end 2nd/Colorado station simply would have very little room for. That extra track has another benefit in; 1) creating a small mid-day storage location for one or two 3 cars trains and we improve our future capacity provisions and reduce the Colorado crossing impacts for storing trains during rush hour to use the added track, 2) the cost of doing that at 4th/Colorado is only a small increase compared to the 2nd/Colorado station yet it improve the large number of passengers and visitors who will use Expo Line to reach Santa Monica during the warm periods. More passengers that will need space to wait for incoming trains, purchase fares, get transit and even visitor information. 3) The Santa Monica Place plans could open up the NW corner of 4th/Colorado to visually open the SE corner terminal, or better still define a second Pedestrian promenade on Colorado (with wider sidewalks and other pedestrian friendly treatments which runs East-West to all the civic attractions; Transit, Pier, Beach, Auditorium) to complement 3rd Street which runs North-South to tie all the commercial/shopping attractions. The 2nd/Colorado option with all the other pedestrian oriented changes surrounding the west side of the station limits what can be done operationally with Expo. Mind you I like that location because of it's central location but if we could remove all the lanes for Colorado and make that a transit only street and place a three track terminal there that would be wonderful but; * That parking structure for Santa Monica Place will become a thorny issue because access to it will be limited potentially affecting the terminal operations of Expo as well as the potential as a joint use agreement for as a Park-Ride. * 2nd/Colorado station all hinges on the 2nd Street Bridge and extension of 2nd Street be built before this station opens because there will be no way for traffic to currently transition from 2nd to Main Street. As I'm typing this I had a Eureka! moment and question, the key destinations in Santa Monica are geared towards ACTIVE Walking (Pier and Promendade), what difference will one or two block(s) make if the patrons in question are already in a mindset to walk and are in an environment where walking is encouraged? Your view is highly biased and not so correct, Jerard. Regarding the layover tracks, it's also provided in a spur for the 2nd St option. Regarding the cost, 2nd St is far cheaper because it frees up expensive land in the Sears Auto parking lot, which could be sold to TODs. Regarding pedestrian friendliness, I don't see how pedestrian friendly a station could be if it's located at a very busy freeway ramp. Regarding a few blocks of walk, true, perhaps not that important, but it still benefits if you can eliminate that and find a more pedestrian-attractive location. Sometimes, even a few blocks can make a project very unattractive and unpopular. Last but not least, the 4th - 5th St option is a permament dead end on the tracks, which I very much dislike. It eliminates all future improvements to the line.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Jan 26, 2009 12:35:23 GMT -8
My Vote was for 2nd and Colorado.
:-) In an ideal world I would vote for PCH and Sunset, next to a new, large, parking Garage. This might encourage some folks to park and ride instead of driving into Santa Monica. I know, dream on.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Jan 26, 2009 13:18:17 GMT -8
Regarding a few blocks of walk, true, perhaps not that important, but it still benefits if you can eliminate that and find a more pedestrian-attractive location. Sometimes, even a few blocks can make a project very unattractive and unpopular. Last but not least, the 4th - 5th St option is a permanent dead end on the tracks, which I very much dislike. It eliminates all future improvements to the line. I'm imagining that Metro could make a very attractive station where ever they decide to put it. Again, let me ask this - what happens to traffic in Santa Monica when Main Street is shut off, Colorado is shut off in at least one direction, and forth street is constantly being slowed for train crossings? Add in the pedestrian traffic on Ocean and you've got an absolute nightmare trying to go North/South. Also, have you been to where that Colorado/2nd street station would be? There is precious little room to move as is. This station would be a great opportunity to take a relatively unattractive corner of downtown SM, and make it a jewel of the MTA. Shoehorning it on a current street won't make anyone happy.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 26, 2009 14:09:53 GMT -8
Regarding a few blocks of walk, true, perhaps not that important, but it still benefits if you can eliminate that and find a more pedestrian-attractive location. Sometimes, even a few blocks can make a project very unattractive and unpopular. Last but not least, the 4th - 5th St option is a permanent dead end on the tracks, which I very much dislike. It eliminates all future improvements to the line. I'm imagining that Metro could make a very attractive station where ever they decide to put it. Again, let me ask this - what happens to traffic in Santa Monica when Main Street is shut off, Colorado is shut off in at least one direction, and forth street is constantly being slowed for train crossings? Add in the pedestrian traffic on Ocean and you've got an absolute nightmare trying to go North/South. dont you remember? santa monica does not care about drivers anymore
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 14:33:51 GMT -8
Again, let me ask this - what happens to traffic in Santa Monica when Main Street is shut off, Colorado is shut off in at least one direction, and forth street is constantly being slowed for train crossings? Add in the pedestrian traffic on Ocean and you've got an absolute nightmare trying to go North/South. Simple: no cars on Colorado -- no traffic congestion on Colorado. What happens to other streets need to be addressed as a formal traffic study.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 26, 2009 14:40:53 GMT -8
Your view is highly biased and not so correct, Jerard. Regarding the layover tracks, it's also provided in a spur for the 2nd St option. Highly biased and not correct based on what? I have a planning and architectural background, I ask questions to Metro Rail operations? That I'm coming up with an understanding of the site and a proper analysis of what's needed and how the rail crews will operate it? Tell me something I'm missing because you seem to have all the answers. Look at that image closely, Notice Main Street, notice 2nd Street, currently traffic turns from 2nd to Main using Colorado. Notice what I wrote in my post the way this option will be feasible with the building of the 2nd Street bridge over the 10 Freeway. Someone will have to pay for that 2nd Street bridge are you including that in your costs? The ramp is 300' away from the 4th/Colorado corner. So why is it not ok to place a terminal station there but it's ok to place a TOD? That logic makes little sense. I can say the same thing for 2nd/Colorado because of the way cars will turn from 2nd onto Main Street using Colorado, that is why I stated in my post I would like the 2nd/Colorado option when the 2nd Street extension and bridge is included. Its unattractive and unpopular if the location in question isn't a pleasant environment to be around in the first place. What improvements can you possibly extend there that would be eliminated by the virtue of Ocean Avenue and the narrowness of the right-of-way you thought of using? Maybe a streetcar service but a 3 car Light Rail train, forget about it the trains are too long for some of the key street blocks.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 15:26:42 GMT -8
Your view is highly biased and not so correct, Jerard. Regarding the layover tracks, it's also provided in a spur for the 2nd St option. Highly biased and not correct based on what? I have a planning and architectural background, I ask questions to Metro Rail operations? That I'm coming up with an understanding of the site and a proper analysis of what's needed and how the rail crews will operate it? Tell me something I'm missing because you seem to have all the answers. Look at that image closely, Notice Main Street, notice 2nd Street, currently traffic turns from 2nd to Main using Colorado. Notice what I wrote in my post the way this option will be feasible with the building of the 2nd Street bridge over the 10 Freeway. Someone will have to pay for that 2nd Street bridge are you including that in your costs? The ramp is 300' away from the 4th/Colorado corner. So why is it not ok to place a terminal station there but it's ok to place a TOD? That logic makes little sense. I can say the same thing for 2nd/Colorado because of the way cars will turn from 2nd onto Main Street using Colorado, that is why I stated in my post I would like the 2nd/Colorado option when the 2nd Street extension and bridge is included. Its unattractive and unpopular if the location in question isn't a pleasant environment to be around in the first place. What improvements can you possibly extend there that would be eliminated by the virtue of Ocean Avenue and the narrowness of the right-of-way you thought of using? Maybe a streetcar service but a 3 car Light Rail train, forget about it the trains are too long for some of the key street blocks. A person's lack of bias on an issue has nothing to do with his/her background or knowledge. It's clear that you have a stronger opinion than mine on this issue, regardless of my or your background or my or your knowledge and understanding of Expo. To me 2nd St option has some problems, and I and the preliminary study have already addressed how they could be dealt with. I've also already addressed the problems associated with the 4th - 5th St location. You and I can have an endless spin on this but at the end it will be a waste of our times because neither of us is going to be convinced at the other. It's especially a waste of time considering that neither I, you, or even the Expo Authority will have a say on this station but it will be solely decided by the City of Santa Monica. So, if you feel so strongly about the 4th - 5th St location, you should contact the City of Santa Monica. The reason I have started this thread was to gather public/transit-advocate feedback on the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 26, 2009 15:37:24 GMT -8
^ Understood, which is why this is a good discussion to look at the problems/pitfalls and come up with some objective solutions and discuss it when a situation like that happens again. Like was done with the 1st/Alameda crossing for the Regional Connector. That helped in preparing TTC letter.
In the case of Expo in Santa Monica, in a sense Metro may have a say because they'll hold some the purse strings in some of it and will have to operate it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 15:47:16 GMT -8
Regarding the operations they need to convince me in the DEIR that the 4th - 5th St alternative is significantly superior with regard to headways and speed. The DEIR will hopefully be out in a week or two. Of course, none of us want a line that would introduce delays or capacity problems for the operations.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Jan 26, 2009 16:17:31 GMT -8
Simple: no cars on Colorado -- no traffic congestion on Colorado. What happens to other streets need to be addressed as a formal traffic study. Right. Unfortunately: no cars on Colorado = more cars on an already congested Broadway & Santa Monica. You also didn't mention the impact of shutting down Main and gumming up 4th.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 17:01:42 GMT -8
Simple: no cars on Colorado -- no traffic congestion on Colorado. What happens to other streets need to be addressed as a formal traffic study. Right. Unfortunately: no cars on Colorado = more cars on an already congested Broadway & Santa Monica. You also didn't mention the impact of shutting down Main and gumming up 4th. Santa Monica was originally built on railroads, which were then torn apart, and they were replaced with the messy streets that we have now. During that process they also separated grades and built buildings on the rights-of-way with no consideration for future transit. Things are much different today with regard to the mentality of the people who run the City of Santa Monica now in comparison to then. But that's the history behind the problems of today. We should build roughly ten times the number of lines that's being built and planned to make this a livable city. Your questions should be answered in the DEIR, coming out soon.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 26, 2009 17:17:11 GMT -8
Well, I think that we could see a city like Santa Monica reconfiguring its streets locally to accommodate a train to 2nd street, but if it is a block or two away it's my hope that the pedestrian amenities and pedestrian mall is extended right up to the terminus.
I'd hate to have folks gnashing their teeth that it was a bit too far away to be ideal for pedestrians.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 26, 2009 17:35:42 GMT -8
Here's a photo to give more of a feeling of the setting, looking west on Colorado from between Sears (left) and Macy's (right) taken last spring. And this map from the Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan -- with the potential Expo station added -- shows the new 2nd Street bridge and extension of Olympic Drive to Ocean Avenue that are already planned and could mitigate closing part of Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 26, 2009 17:52:44 GMT -8
For the other option, here's the Sears Auto Center site, on the right, looking north on 4th Street from just north of the freeway in 2006. Given the slope from Colorado down to the freeway, I'd be curious to see a detailed topography of the area. I've wondered if Colorado is high enough that the station tracks could continue south and bridge over the freeway to head down the Lincoln corridor to a Green Line connection. If true, that would be a reason for the 4th Street station option.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 18:07:59 GMT -8
Thanks for the very nice plans, Darrell. Here is a city with an environmentally friendly plan for the future! Perhaps a first in America?
I would love to see the promenade ending at Colorado as in the plans and guess where -- at the foot of the Expo Station platform.
I've asked the same question you asked about topography to myself many times, Darrell. My conclusion is that there is no way Expo can be extended southward (either via Ocean or Lincoln) with an at-grade 4th - 5th St station. The freeway ramp and freeway, as well as 4th St, block the end of the tracks. In fact, I don't think it can even be extended toward Ocean Ave with an elevated 4th - 5th St station, because of the city buildings; although, it can loop back to Olympic and Lincoln with an elevated station, but an elevated station is opposed by the City of Santa Monica. I think the only option to extend it would be if it's built in the Colorado median. Then they could either go down Ocean Ave by the beach or loop back to Lincoln via Ocean Ave and Olympic Drive.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 26, 2009 21:59:22 GMT -8
Darrell,
Does Santa Monica have the funding already identified to go with this plan so it can be done by 2014 when Expo opens? If that is the case then go whole hog and have Expo takeover Colorado between 2nd and 4th Street and place 3 tracks there.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 23:09:06 GMT -8
We are aiming for 2013. Note the sharp contrast between the City of Santa Monica and the City of Pasadena. Santa Monica wants the line at-grade; Pasadena had it buried under great expense. Now many people don't even know that there is a train and station in Old Town Pasadena. Out of sight, out of mind. I think this is contributing to the low ridership of the Gold Line. This may be another supporting argument for having the Santa Monica Station at the heart of the Civic Center, in the Colorado median at the 3rd St promenade. People would recognize and accept Santa Monica as the "City of the Train."
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 26, 2009 23:10:58 GMT -8
Right. Unfortunately: no cars on Colorado = more cars on an already congested Broadway & Santa Monica. You also didn't mention the impact of shutting down Main and gumming up 4th. adamv, Didn't you get the memo? Despite dozens of recent studies on the impact of at-grade light rail crossings on traffic circulation, today there is absolutely NO IMPACT to vehicular traffic from at-grade crossings, street-closures, and lane drops...especially not for lines with 2-2.5 minute peak hour combined headways...especially not on the westside of all places. This debate brings about two semi-related questions: 1) If at-grade tracks can fit on Colorado Blvd (or heck even 1st St and 3rd St on the Eastside Extension), how is it possible that there wasn't any room to fit them on Venice Blvd? Or even Sepulveda Blvd for that matter? (I'll be highly surprised if someone can answer that question by sticking to the question, instead of diverting the discussion to an argument about the merits of the particular routes and/or the motives of those who don't support the ROW route)2) If one, who is clearly capable of assessing necessary street-width for at-grade tracks, travel lane configuration alternatives, etc. fails to call Metro out for claiming such ridiculousness like tracks can't fit down Venice at-grade, is said person being a transit advocate, or simply a paid or unpaid extension of Metro's public relations department?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 26, 2009 23:38:39 GMT -8
We are aiming for 2013. Note the sharp contrast between the City of Santa Monica and the City of Pasadena. Santa Monica wants the line at-grade; Pasadena had it buried under great expense. Now many people don't even know that there is a train and station in Old Town Pasadena. Out of sight, out of mind. I think this is contributing to the low ridership of the Gold Line. This may be another supporting argument for having the Santa Monica Station at the heart of the Civic Center, in the Colorado median at the 3rd St promenade. People would recognize and accept Santa Monica as the "City of the Train." It would also help a lot if they called the Memorial Park Station the Old Pasadena Station instead. Why Pasadena and the local merchants don't argue for this makes no sense to me. From the Metro perspective as well. When people look at a station map and see Memorial Park, that means nothing to almost no one. Old Pasadena means more riders, because they can easily see the destination and the possibilities of where they could go from there. There are other examples of where we should be naming our stations after landmarks, neighborhoods, and real destinations like virtually every other transit system in the world instead of the closest street. This Pasadena example is probably the most glaring example of this.
|
|