|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 6, 2010 16:38:12 GMT -8
I was under the impression that "Expo Line" was just a place holder until the final decision by the Metro board would be made. Something like how the the Gold Line was called the "Blue Line" until right before it opened and the Orange Line was called the "San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project" for a very long time. The last CPUC doc on Dorsey Crossing calls it the "Exposition Boulevard Transit Corridor Light Rail Transit Line" I think you all agree that a consistent naming scheme is important to avoid confusion. Commuters unfamiliar with the system may think the line is a separate system such as Metrolink because it does not conform with the established naming scheme. Hmm, consisting naming scheme... How about "Edward R. Roybal LĂnea de Oro Eastside Extension?" Actually the Expo Line is rather more like Metrolink than, for example, the line I mentioned above in that it's a high-speed line that uses private railroad rights-of-way controlled by crossing gates. The main thing in common within the Metro lines is the operator, we have anywhere between a bus (Orange Line) and heavy rail (Red and Purple) and quite different kinds of light-rail. But, regardless, it's false that the name "Expo Line" has not been officialized. The official name "Metro Expo Line" was adopted on August 24, 2006, and it's final. The only thing that will be determined in the future is the color in the maps, but no board decision is needed on that as the Metro staff will already be using the well-established "aqua" when they draw and print the lines in the maps. But the name is the "Metro Expo Line," adopted at the following Metro board meeting: Name "Expo" as the official name and color "rose" to be used in the maps is rejected: Name and color "Aqua" is rejected: Name "Expo" adopted as the final official name and color to be used in the maps is deferred to the future: I, personally, have always been happy about the adoption of the name Expo Line more than three years ago now. Color names get more and more obscure and they poorly identify the actual lines. After all, what is red about the Red Line, gold about the Gold Line, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 6, 2010 17:37:58 GMT -8
I look forward to this line being revisited as the Aqua Line, but Expo Line for now is also just fine. The thing that grinds me up is that there was so much inside political baseball surrounding Bernard Parks' ego and his potential future as a county supervisor...which has nothing to do with the name.
I do look forward to Bernard Parks getting off the Board of Expo, just as I'm thrilled he's off the Metro Board now. This naming should have been a no-brainer, but too darn much of it was anti-Westside bigotry (which I think we know what THAT is code for) on the part of Mr. Parks, to say nothing of his personal ego to come up with "Rose" out of left field.
Parks isn't Mayor, he isn't supervisor, and I wish he would build more bridges and create less animosity and rankled feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 6, 2010 18:25:49 GMT -8
Obviously, I totally missed the setting in stone of the "Expo Line" as the official name. I thought they punted on a name back in 2006 but as you pointed out they punted on a color only. I dislike the name but it's not up to me.
"Edward R. Roybal LĂnea de Oro Eastside Extension"
The way I picture this name is that it will be used like the Julian Dixon Station in that most people just call it 7th and Fig.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 6, 2010 20:53:03 GMT -8
Well, Ken, there is nothing "no-brainer" about color and taste. It's a personal like or dislike. I like "Expo" myself. "Aqua" was promoted by a few Expo advocates, including yourself, and supported by Metro staff. Public opinion was never consulted. The Metro board rejected "Aqua Line" 6 - 4 and accepted "Expo Line" 10 - 0. That tells you something.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 6, 2010 21:31:08 GMT -8
The way I picture this name is that it will be used like the Julian Dixon Station in that most people just call it 7th and Fig. Most people call it 7th and Metro which is how the metro employees refer to it. After that metrocenter. The shopping center is called 7th and Fig, but I never heard the station called that.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 6, 2010 22:51:03 GMT -8
Gokhan et al, I myself went to the MVCC and Palms NC--their Boards favored Aqua unanimously. If memory serves me right, Aqua was also favored by the Venice NC. I once had a bitter, bitter dispute between myself and other key members of F4ET because I insisted on public input.
Public input DID favor Aqua. So did Metro staff and pretty much everyone associated with F4ET and/or their supporters from throughout the Westside, Mid-City, and region. Period. I insisted on public input, and got it...and then Parks came out of nowhere and fomented anti-Westside sentiment (again, I think we all know what THAT is code for).
It was all about ego and bigotry, and then politics came on board when certain SGV politicians favored Parks, jumped on board his Ego Express and hoped for something in return with respect to the Gold Line and other issues facing the SGV.
I wish that I could tell you that this cartoonish situation never occurred, but having been in the very uncomfortable epicenter of it (run this by Darrell, he'll confirm it), I'm afraid it was.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 7, 2010 4:33:51 GMT -8
I, personally, have always been happy about the adoption of the name Expo Line more than three years ago now. Color names get more and more obscure and they poorly identify the actual lines. After all, what is red about the Red Line, gold about the Gold Line, etc.? As I have said in the Year in Transit, nothing can possibly top the busways. First, Metro gives them color designations to imply rail-equivalent services. Then, when you see that a bus actually arrives, the Orange Line runs silver buses. The Silver Line runs orange buses.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 7, 2010 9:16:15 GMT -8
I was under the impression that "Expo Line" was just a place holder until the final decision by the Metro board would be made. Something like how the the Gold Line was called the "Blue Line" until right before it opened No, the Gold Line was originally conceived as part of the Blue Line, complete with Downtown Connector. It's name was changed to the Gold Line after it was clear there would be no connector built (for a long time, anyway). The way I picture this name is that it will be used like the Julian Dixon Station in that most people just call it 7th and Fig. I've always called it Metro Center. But I think 7th/Metro is what most people call it. Which is annoying, because 7th/Metro implies the intersection of Seventh Street and Metro Street (which of course doesn't exist.)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 7, 2010 9:21:22 GMT -8
Actually the Expo Line is rather more like Metrolink than, for example, the line I mentioned above in that it's a high-speed line that uses private railroad rights-of-way controlled by crossing gates. The main thing in common within the Metro lines is the operator, we have anywhere between a bus (Orange Line) and heavy rail (Red and Purple) and quite different kinds of light-rail. I support Expo as much as you do. But saying Expo is closer to Metrolink is a stretch. The Expo ROW is a former private railroad ROW, but so are other Metro Rail routes. Expo is no faster than the Blue Line, so far as I can tell. And the rolling stock, station spacing, etc., is consistent with the other Metro LRT lines.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2010 12:49:01 GMT -8
Actually the Expo Line is rather more like Metrolink than, for example, the line I mentioned above in that it's a high-speed line that uses private railroad rights-of-way controlled by crossing gates. The main thing in common within the Metro lines is the operator, we have anywhere between a bus (Orange Line) and heavy rail (Red and Purple) and quite different kinds of light-rail. I support Expo as much as you do. But saying Expo is closer to Metrolink is a stretch. The Expo ROW is a former private railroad ROW, but so are other Metro Rail routes. Expo is no faster than the Blue Line, so far as I can tell. And the rolling stock, station spacing, etc., is consistent with the other Metro LRT lines. I think the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines (except for the street-running sections) are more like commuter trains than light-rail. This is because they use private railroad rights-of-way, utilitize high-platform cars, and operate at high speeds. In that sense they are also similar to the Interurban Red Cars of Pacific Electric, which were large electric commuter trains but they were not trolleys used in some of their other lines. But it's also true that there are differences with Metrolink, such as electric vs. diesel (although at least in principle Metrolink can be electrified), one-mile vs. two-mile station spacing, 55 MPH vs. 75 MPH, frequency of operations, double-track vs. single-track, fully automatic train controls vs. old-fashioned signaling systems, etc. So, what we call light-rail in Los Angeles is quite different than what they call light-rail in Europe or even in Phoenix. Our light-rail is a hybrid of modern commuter trains and streetcars. Wheras, in Europe or in Phoenix, it is more like a modern streetcar or a trolley.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 7, 2010 14:21:12 GMT -8
No, the Gold Line was originally conceived as part of the Blue Line, complete with Downtown Connector. It's name was changed to the Gold Line after it was clear there would be no connector built (for a long time, anyway). Yes, I knew this but the board waited FOREVER to finaly change the Blue to Gold name and if memory serves me correct it was not to far behind opening. I've always called it Metro Center. But I think 7th/Metro is what most people call it. Which is annoying, because 7th/Metro implies the intersection of Seventh Street and Metro Street (which of course doesn't exist.) That's part of the problem of having multiple or long names. I've heard it called both "7th and Metro" and "7th and Fig" but per my point very few people call it Julian Dixson as is very few people will call the eastside Gold Line Edward Roybal.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 7, 2010 16:54:13 GMT -8
I think the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines (except for the street-running sections) are more like commuter trains than light-rail. This is because they use private railroad rights-of-way, utilitize high-platform cars, and operate at high speeds. In that sense they are also similar to the Interurban Red Cars of Pacific Electric, which were large electric commuter trains but they were not trolleys used in some of their other lines. Other than L.A.'s high platforms, I'd say the majority of U.S. light rail lines are like L.A.'s, predominantly on private right-of-way while using city streets where necessary in downtown areas. These include San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, and Minneapolis. San Francisco, In contrast, Phoenix, Houston, and L.A.'s Eastside are predominately in street median alignments.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 7, 2010 17:05:56 GMT -8
Yeah, but the major European cities have heavy rail Metro systems.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2010 17:12:08 GMT -8
I think the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines (except for the street-running sections) are more like commuter trains than light-rail. This is because they use private railroad rights-of-way, utilitize high-platform cars, and operate at high speeds. In that sense they are also similar to the Interurban Red Cars of Pacific Electric, which were large electric commuter trains but they were not trolleys used in some of their other lines. Other than L.A.'s high platforms, I'd say the majority of U.S. light rail lines are like L.A.'s, predominantly on private right-of-way while using city streets where necessary in downtown areas. These include San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, and Minneapolis. San Francisco, In contrast, Phoenix, Houston, and L.A.'s Eastside are predominately in street median alignments. And these private rights-of-way are thanks to the commuter trains of the past, like Pacific Electric Railway... In contrast Pheonix is a new city, which didn't have commuter trains in the past, and the Eastside only had Los Angeles Railway streetcars on 1st St, not the Pacific Electric Railway commuter trains.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2010 17:15:07 GMT -8
Yeah, but the major European cities have heavy rail Metro systems. No, not over long distances like in Los Angeles. They have commuter trains over long distances, not too different than our high-speed light-rail lines like the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines, as I've been explaining in my last few posts.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 7, 2010 18:09:00 GMT -8
I support Expo as much as you do. But saying Expo is closer to Metrolink is a stretch. The Expo ROW is a former private railroad ROW, but so are other Metro Rail routes. Expo is no faster than the Blue Line, so far as I can tell. And the rolling stock, station spacing, etc., is consistent with the other Metro LRT lines. I think the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines (except for the street-running sections) are more like commuter trains than light-rail. This is because they use private railroad rights-of-way, utilitize high-platform cars, and operate at high speeds. In that sense they are also similar to the Interurban Red Cars of Pacific Electric, which were large electric commuter trains but they were not trolleys used in some of their other lines. But it's also true that there are differences with Metrolink, such as electric vs. diesel (although at least in principle Metrolink can be electrified), one-mile vs. two-mile station spacing, 55 MPH vs. 75 MPH, frequency of operations, double-track vs. single-track, fully automatic train controls vs. old-fashioned signaling systems, etc. So, what we call light-rail in Los Angeles is quite different than what they call light-rail in Europe or even in Phoenix. Our light-rail is a hybrid of modern commuter trains and streetcars. Wheras, in Europe or in Phoenix, it is more like a modern streetcar or a trolley. I've ridden light rail, commuter rail and heavy rail in other US cities and our light rail in LA is much more similar to other light rail lines than it is to Metrolink. And stations every 2 miles on Metrolink? Many are about 4-5 miles apart and I'd say that's about average. Even when stations are 2 miles apart they have 6-7 mile gaps in other places so it averages out.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2010 18:18:18 GMT -8
I think the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines (except for the street-running sections) are more like commuter trains than light-rail. This is because they use private railroad rights-of-way, utilitize high-platform cars, and operate at high speeds. In that sense they are also similar to the Interurban Red Cars of Pacific Electric, which were large electric commuter trains but they were not trolleys used in some of their other lines. But it's also true that there are differences with Metrolink, such as electric vs. diesel (although at least in principle Metrolink can be electrified), one-mile vs. two-mile station spacing, 55 MPH vs. 75 MPH, frequency of operations, double-track vs. single-track, fully automatic train controls vs. old-fashioned signaling systems, etc. So, what we call light-rail in Los Angeles is quite different than what they call light-rail in Europe or even in Phoenix. Our light-rail is a hybrid of modern commuter trains and streetcars. Wheras, in Europe or in Phoenix, it is more like a modern streetcar or a trolley. I've ridden light rail, commuter rail and heavy rail in other US cities and our light rail in LA is much more similar to other light rail lines than it is to Metrolink. And stations every 2 miles on Metrolink? Many are about 4-5 miles apart and I'd say that's about average. Even when stations are 2 miles apart they have 6-7 mile gaps in other places so it averages out. Certainly light-rail vehicles (LRVs) are more or less the same everywhere, regardless of whether it's a streetcar-type or commuter-rail-type system. But the similarity runs in the speed of operations and the rights-of-way where these operations take place, as well as grade separations, crossing gates, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 7, 2010 18:32:01 GMT -8
Regardless of whether the Expo Line experience is like Metrolink, it will be expected by I-10 freeway commuters to have a similar role. Speed and convenience, especially during rush hour, should have (and always will) make some folks wonder if skip-stop or crossover plans from the Santa Monica terminus with stops only at Expo/Sepulveda, Venice/Robertson and Crenshaw before stopping at every stop in denser Downtown would probably be very popular with Westside commuters who won't ever see Metrolink in the Westside.
Even if only 5-10 minutes were saved, it would mean a lot to riders from the far west end of the line...because otherwise (especially with a dearth of parking) they might choose to drive on the I-10 east in the morning rush hour to Robertson (where the Downtown traffic really ties up), get off at the offramp that leads directly to the parking lot, and then get on the line over there.
At least that's what I would do...because I'm an evil car commuter, for the most part, and car commuters really want that extra time. In other words, Expo might very well have a Metrolink component because of its freeway adjacency and because there is no Metrolink in the Westside.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 7, 2010 19:51:51 GMT -8
Light rail is light rail and commuter rail is commuter rail. Expo is nothing like Metrolink.
For one, average speed on the Orange County Line is 44 MPH. That's on the high end. On the low end is the San Bernardino and 91 Lines at 39 MPH.
Average spacing of stops is 6-7 miles depending on the line.
Ken Alpern's is wise to advocate for express service on this line. It would help on the Blue Line as well.
However, all trains would probably have to stop at Dorsey High School, bwahahahaha.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 7, 2010 20:01:22 GMT -8
I for one look at our light rail to be more rapid transit-like; it's more akin to heavy rail than streetcars/trams. One obvious feature overlooked (and taken for granted) is the fact that all of our light rail stations are level platform boarding to the train. This is maybe a coincidence due to the 1990 ADA being signed into law, but that happened less than two weeks after the Metro Blue Line opened. I've ridden older light rail systems like the San Diego Trolley, San Francisco's Muni Metro, and Boston's MBTA Green Line where boarding such trains is like getting on an old RTD bus (you go up a few steps to your seat), however, even light rail lines opened after L.A.'s like Dallas' DART and Houston's METRORail are not level platform boarding; both are more akin to boarding our Metro Orange Line low floor buses.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 7, 2010 22:17:42 GMT -8
All trains should feature level boarding if they want to be taken seriously.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves on the Expo Line and start deluding ourselves that it'll cure cancer or something. It'll be a nice light rail line but it's not going to change the face of transportation in the area. I only expect Wilshire Subway to do that to its corridor.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2010 22:22:03 GMT -8
All trains should feature level boarding if they want to be taken seriously. But let's not get ahead of ourselves on the Expo Line and start deluding ourselves that it'll cure cancer or something. It'll be a nice light rail line but it's not going to change the face of transportation in the area. I only expect Wilshire Subway to do that to its corridor. Well, the Expo Line will do even more wonderful things than curing cancer. It will prevent cancer from ever happening because it will make the city a more friendly place, with happier, healthier people walking around. Wilshire and Expo are two separate corridors. Why would you take the Wilshire Line if you live or work in the Expo corridor or vice versa? Does the Wilshire Line go to USC, Culver City, Palms, Pico - Olympic neighborhood, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 7, 2010 22:47:01 GMT -8
Wilshire and Expo are two separate corridors. Why would you take the Wilshire Line if you live or work in the Expo corridor or vice versa? Does the Wilshire Line go to USC, Culver City, Palms, Pico - Olympic neighborhood, etc.? I said "in its corridor." The Wilshire Subway will do wonders for the Hancock Park and Westwood areas. Expo Line will be nice but it's not going to have a similar effect for the areas it serves. It'll be nicer than the bus. The transit dependent in South LA and hipsters in Santa Monica will use it. Few people who drive will use it. Maybe they'll use it for a USC game once a year, though. Still good that it's being constructed though. Yes, because that has certainly been the case with every rail line built in LA. The Blue Line is such a happy place. The Gold Line sure is taking cars off the road. The Red Line is such a happy place that picture taking is an arrestable offense.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 8, 2010 8:46:35 GMT -8
Wilshire and Expo are two separate corridors. Why would you take the Wilshire Line if you live or work in the Expo corridor or vice versa? Does the Wilshire Line go to USC, Culver City, Palms, Pico - Olympic neighborhood, etc.? I said "in its corridor." The Wilshire Subway will do wonders for the Hancock Park and Westwood areas. Expo Line will be nice but it's not going to have a similar effect for the areas it serves. It'll be nicer than the bus. The transit dependent in South LA and hipsters in Santa Monica will use it. Few people who drive will use it. Maybe they'll use it for a USC game once a year, though. Still good that it's being constructed though. Yes, because that has certainly been the case with every rail line built in LA. The Blue Line is such a happy place. The Gold Line sure is taking cars off the road. The Red Line is such a happy place that picture taking is an arrestable offense. The problem with the Blue Line and Purple Line (as currently terminated in Koreatown) is that they go through such neglected areas that people who use them tend to drive off middle or upper-middle class people. The Gold Line does well if you take into account that this area is not that dense and the line fails to reach Downtown. So, the idea is that, when more and more transit is built, more and more people will ride these lines, and this will help change transit habits and demographics of LA. Transit will no longer be only for people of low income.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 8, 2010 8:59:05 GMT -8
The problem with the Blue Line and Purple Line (as currently terminated in Koreatown) is that they go through such neglected areas that people who use them tend to drive off middle or upper-middle class people. If you ever take the Blue Line during the rush hours (like I do), you will see lots of middle-class (white-collar) workers riding the train, wearing suits, checking their day planners and Blackberrys, and reading the paper. The Blue Line is hardly unsuccessful, with 73,000 daily boardings.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 8, 2010 9:00:20 GMT -8
Expo is a very important piece of the puzzle. It will create options for people getting to work or whereever they are going. And it will expand the system to include lots of new destinations. And it will give people an opportunity to walk a bit.
But no, it will not cure cancer. And it will not reduce traffic. No rail line will do that.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 8, 2010 9:04:04 GMT -8
The problem with the Blue Line and Purple Line (as currently terminated in Koreatown) is that they go through such neglected areas that people who use them tend to drive off middle or upper-middle class people. If you ever take the Blue Line during the rush hours (like I do), you will see lots of middle-class (white-collar) workers riding the train, wearing suits, checking their day planners and Blackberrys, and reading the paper. The Blue Line is hardly unsuccessful, with 73,000 daily boardings. Good to know. My coworkers who regularly take it during the early morning (before 7 AM) and afternoon (around 3:30 PM) believe that they are the only middle-class people riding it. But I will let them know that this is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 8, 2010 9:20:56 GMT -8
Expo is a very important piece of the puzzle. It will create options for people getting to work or whereever they are going. And it will expand the system to include lots of new destinations. And it will give people an opportunity to walk a bit. But no, it will not cure cancer. And it will not reduce traffic. No rail line will do that. Well, it may cure cancer or do good things for at least some people. Sometimes, even the small things can make big differences in your life. Of course, you are also quite likely to contract a deadly airborne pathogen when riding public transit as well. LOL It will reduce traffic relatively somewhat, as some of the people riding it would be using their cars otherwise. What they mean by "It's not our goal to reduce traffic" is that they don't mean to reduce the absolute traffic, as the population will keep increasing in the future (unless some people finally realize that there are ways not to have more than two or three kids). But it will be less traffic relatively in comparison to not having the line at all.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 8, 2010 11:38:17 GMT -8
It will reduce traffic relatively somewhat, as some of the people riding it would be using their cars otherwise. What they mean by "It's not our goal to reduce traffic" is that they don't mean to reduce the absolute traffic, as the population will keep increasing in the future (unless some people finally realize that there are ways not to have more than two or three kids). But it will be less traffic relatively in comparison to not having the line at all. There has never been a rail line that has "reduced traffic". Neither in Paris, New York, London, or Chicago. A rail line just enhances alternative methods of transportation. There's a perfect equilibrium of when a person will take alternative transportation if the time and cost of driving do not provide a substantial benefit over a rail line. In those aforementioned cities, it's the time that makes people use rail (try driving between North London and Central London during rush hour..it takes 1.5 hours..literally) and the cost of parking. Whereas, in LA, time and cost is not detrimental because our freeways go EVERYWHERE, unlike those cities, and the cost of parking is a laughable $3 - $10 in central business districts (compared to $20 - $50 in "world-class cities"). In those other cities, the freeways (or motorways, i should say) do not go through the CENTER of the city. I think the "reducing traffic" argument is only used to get the automobile junkies on board with transit developments. The Red Line never reduced traffic on the 101, Gold Line for the 101, Blue Line for the 710, etc.... But, eh, if the single passenger automobile driver wants to support a rail line because it "reduces traffic"...then I'm not going to stop them!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 8, 2010 14:14:10 GMT -8
I didn't say anything about reducing traffic. The term I used was "get people out of their cars."
Traffic is never reduced because there is always another driver to take their place.
|
|