|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 2, 2021 13:32:55 GMT -8
My theory is Metro wants to go to Metro Center but knows the Board, which is very bad at making decisions will choose the spectacularly bad Union Station route. So they took themselves out of the political problem by recommending building only to Slauson. That's the only plausible explanation.
Also what happened to the P3 proposals they received? No one will want to operate a line that ends at Slauson.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2021 13:46:06 GMT -8
My theory is Metro wants to go to Metro Center but knows the Board, which is very bad at making decisions will choose the spectacularly bad Union Station route. So they took themselves out of the political problem by recommending building only to Slauson. That's the only plausible explanation. Also what happened to the P3 proposals they received? No one will want to operate a line that ends at Slauson. They received some unsolicited proposals many years back, but their process is going to be a little like Sepulveda (except here the draft EIR is already done). After the board chooses the alignment, they will put out a request for P3 proposals for the alignment chosen by the board, and then evaluate the bids in the way they would typically put out bids for the design-build contract. The EIR says it leaves options open for design changes from a P3 proposal. I think your theory is probably right. The board will probably choose Union Station or Metro Center. Metro staff don't want to get in the middle of that--a lot of political mudslinging from both sides can come if they recommended the Metro Center option. If Union Station won, there could be bad headlines about the Board going against the technocrats' choice. If Metro Center won, the staff could still be demonized by the stakeholders that wanted Union Station. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Aug 2, 2021 17:07:50 GMT -8
So you guys really think that they’re going to be overruled? I can’t see that happening. I mean is there precedent for that?
This is a disaster. How Washington or Sacramento don’t see the need for major investment here is beyond me. In our second largest city, home of the 2028 Olympics no less.
STOP BUILDING FOR 5 mins from now. START BUILDING FOR THE LONG TERM
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2021 21:58:11 GMT -8
So you guys really think that they’re going to be overruled? I can’t see that happening. I mean is there precedent for that? This is a disaster. How Washington or Sacramento don’t see the need for major investment here is beyond me. In our second largest city, home of the 2028 Olympics no less. STOP BUILDING FOR 5 mins from now. START BUILDING FOR THE LONG TERM Yes, the Board often overrules staff recommendations. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Aug 3, 2021 7:17:43 GMT -8
So you guys really think that they’re going to be overruled? I can’t see that happening. I mean is there precedent for that? This is a disaster. How Washington or Sacramento don’t see the need for major investment here is beyond me. In our second largest city, home of the 2028 Olympics no less. STOP BUILDING FOR 5 mins from now. START BUILDING FOR THE LONG TERM Yes, the Board often overrules staff recommendations. How often? Do we have any examples of this? And when would this decision be made? I desperately hope they get this right. These new lines need to be grade separated, nice stations and with SEAMLESS transfers. Come on Metro, get this right |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 3, 2021 9:20:07 GMT -8
My theory is Metro wants to go to Metro Center but knows the Board, which is very bad at making decisions will choose the spectacularly bad Union Station route. So they took themselves out of the political problem by recommending building only to Slauson. That's the only plausible explanation. Also what happened to the P3 proposals they received? No one will want to operate a line that ends at Slauson. My theory is metro doesn't know what it wants regarding the WSAB. or has been completely corrupted by regulatory capture. to the first point, they're proposing new north south rail infrastructure and right of way to approach union station when there is existing metro north south rail infrastructure and right of way a mere 500 meters (2000 feet) to the east. the red/purple line is already there ready to be used, and could be extended for the full WSAB alignment ala BART (or innumerable other surface HRT options around the world). But metro is assuming everything built must be built by bespoke billions. (Streetsblog reminded me of this today and that I had forgotten about it in the intervening three years) to the second point, There's PPP proposal for the WSAB, it is obviously LRT, and by not using a viable HRT option, metro demonstrates they suffer from regulatory capture by the PPP entity. All speculative of course, but if the shoe fits... |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 3, 2021 9:30:41 GMT -8
Yes, the Board often overrules staff recommendations. How often? Do we have any examples of this? And when would this decision be made? I desperately hope they get this right. These new lines need to be grade separated, nice stations and with SEAMLESS transfers. Come on Metro, get this right They overruled staff recommendations on the Crenshaw and Green Line alignments. Recently, they’ve overruled staff recommendations on when Metro should return to pre-pandemic service levels. They overruled staff recommendations on how to fund the 105 ExpressLanes (they asked for tolls to be used for transit improvements, instead of covering construction costs). They overruled staff recommendations on how and when to proceed with the fareless system initiative. But this isn’t even a staff recommendation, this is a staff-preferred alternative. They aren’t making any recommendation yet. It needs to go through the 45-60 day comment period, see how the public reacts, and then they may make a recommendation. I think its less likely that they overrule design decisions if they can’t find the extra money for those more costly designs. This EIR has already been in preparation for 6 years. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 7, 2021 19:01:11 GMT -8
Draft EIR/EIS released. Staff recommends Slauson to Pioneer alternative, I guess due to financial constraints. Board could overrule them. This would put massive pressure on what is already the most constrained pinch point in the entire metro system (Washington/Flower). If the A line ever returns to anywhere close to the ridership levels that it had 10 years ago, there is literally no room for riders from WSAB to transfer and continue their journey to DTLA. Even at 2019 levels, there's not enough capacity. Ideally the WSAB would go all the way to Flower and have a rail connection from the A line to the WSAB so that every other A line train could use the WSAB tracks to DTLA. That would best serve riders and would also alleviate congestion at Washington/Flower. Perhaps even a convenient passenger connection between the A/WSAB at Slauson might serve a similar purpose. A line riders do go to LA Live and Staples, but on any given train, the overwhelming majority are going to 7th/metro. Which is why it is completely asinine that no Metro Board member has connected the dots given all their talk about fixing the Washington/Flower junction to include in the WSAB study for a A/Blue Line rail connection where tracks can connect to the A/Blue Line and WSAB for interoperability to get added trains to downtown LA at eliminate a problem junction at Washington/Flower. And by that extension studying a tunnel tie in from the 8th Street subway to the Flower Street subway (more than likely it will have to be at 9th/Flower) to enable Blue Line trains to continue through to Regional Connector to current Pasadena/Azusa Gold Line branch. It is also surprising that in my reading of the EIR so far that there is little mention of the P3. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 19, 2021 15:17:06 GMT -8
Get your comments into the EIR. So far, the people that express preferences are roughly split between Union Station and 7th/Metro options. There are a couple of commenters that oppose a Little Tokyo station or oppose building on Alameda.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 30, 2021 8:03:55 GMT -8
Go here to submit your comments: metro.commentinput.com/comment/index?id=GtJAgFeel free to say whatever you want but I think the general consensus on this board is Metro Center is clearly superior to Union Station routing from a ridership perspective. Union Station routing will mean backtracking for the vast majority of the riders. And if Metro builds Union Station and skips a transfer station at Little Tokyo (a very real possibility) it means not only riders will have to backtrack, they will also have to transfer twice to get from WSAB to E line. A sample message: The WSAB rail line is an important part of the Metro's rail network. I support Alternative 2 - a full build out of the line from Metro Center to Pioneer. It is important to terminate the line at Metro Center because Metro's ridership analysis shows that vast majority of WASB riders are going to the Wholesale/Garment district and the Financial district near Metro Center, as well as transfer to E and D line heading further West to USC, Century City, and Santa Monica. Alternative 2 will add a new station in the Wholesale/Garment district with high job density and transit dependency, which adds utility to the overall Metro rail system. Alternative 2 also will ensure all riders going beyond Downtown LA has equitable 1-seat transfer. Other alternatives, such as Union Station terminal will mean backtrack travel for vast majority riders and potential unequal transfer equity with some riders required to walk long distance and taking 2-transfers to reach their destinations. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 7, 2021 13:57:44 GMT -8
numble posted on twitter earlier that Gateway COG is ok with alt 3 if they get a guarantee that it'll be built to Union later, with specifics on when and how, while Eco-Rapid Transit JPA still wants it to Union now. Doesn't bode well for the 7th/Metro alignment.
It seems one of the recurring factors in them wanting Union is so it can continue north toward burbank airport and connect there... which is odd to me as A. the 7th/Metro alignment can also do that (via city west - echo park - atwater - glendale - burbank), and along frankly a better route, and B. if they want to use the Metrolink/Amtrak/CAHSR alignment to burbank airport, that route is overcrowded with tracks already, will already be getting metrolink infills stations and more frequent service, which a recent study recommended instead of LRT, and most importantly that route misses pretty much any real density except at atwater and north of the 134. Between Union and Atwater and through glendale, it's really not the ideal place to put a new route. Just seems so odd to me to prefer that. Maybe they think since the ROW exists already it'll be way cheaper and thus way more likely to happen soonish, but again the overcrowding of lines there may nullify that benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 7, 2021 15:01:22 GMT -8
numble posted on twitter earlier that Gateway COG is ok with alt 3 if they get a guarantee that it'll be built to Union later, with specifics on when and how, while Eco-Rapid Transit JPA still wants it to Union now. Doesn't bode well for the 7th/Metro alignment. It seems one of the recurring factors in them wanting Union is so it can continue north toward burbank airport and connect there... which is odd to me as A. the 7th/Metro alignment can also do that (via city west - echo park - atwater - glendale - burbank), and along frankly a better route, and B. if they want to use the Metrolink/Amtrak/CAHSR alignment to burbank airport, that route is overcrowded with tracks already, will already be getting metrolink infills stations and more frequent service, which a recent study recommended instead of LRT, and most importantly that route misses pretty much any real density except at atwater and north of the 134. Between Union and Atwater and through glendale, it's really not the ideal place to put a new route. Just seems so odd to me to prefer that. Maybe they think since the ROW exists already it'll be way cheaper and thus way more likely to happen soonish, but again the overcrowding of lines there may nullify that benefit. I think Eco-Rapid and Gateway are just in favor of Union Station because of inertia. They've always advocated it and so that's what they are in favor of. They've never really articulated good reasons why they support it besides the fact that they think going to Union Station provides a lot of connections. Metro already gave Eco-Rapid a study showing they don't want to build light rail along the Metrolink/CAHSR ROW to Burbank. It is one of the reasons why Alt. 3 oddly might actually be a good option to get the 7th/Metro alignment. If they delay the decision on the downtown alignment, then when it comes down to selecting the downtown alignment, they would place more weight on what people in Downtown LA want. When they study the many Gold Line extensions and the Crenshaw Northern extension, they focus a lot on what the people along the new extension want, and they don't focus on the desires of people in the already completed sections. Eco-Rapid predicts that the LA Metro board will vote on the locally preferred alternative in December. Its kind of hard to predict where the vote will go, especially since we don't know when Garcetti is leaving and what will happen to the four board votes he controls. The suburbs usually vote together (Butts, Dutra, Najarian and Sandoval) and Barger usually votes with them, but Sandoval is new and its not sure if he'll follow that pattern. They probably vote for whatever the Gateway COG wants. Hahn had previously said she wanted to go to Union Station, but she has been known to change her mind, and her deputy is Luke Klipp, who generally really good at transit issues. That leaves the 4 LA city votes, Solis, Kuehl and Mitchell. Solis represents part of the Gateway Cities, but she also represents the folks along Alameda downtown that don't want the Union Station alignment, and she has been better with transit/equity issues. It looks like it would be a close vote, but whenever there are close items, they seem to sometimes work behind the scenes to come to a compromise solution instead of having close votes on things. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 7, 2021 17:24:32 GMT -8
I'm pretty much alone among transit enthusiasts in thinking that there are lots of good reasons to go to Union Station. My thinking isn't so much big picture and long term about "what's next", but practical regarding where people can go the fastest and how to balance congestion.
More than 5 years ago when Metro train ridership was near an all time high I stood on the B/D mezzanine at Union Station at evening rush and observed how packed trains arrived every 5 minutes emptying riders heading for metrolink. With Link US, CAHSR, and the D line extension, there will be a huge increase in ridership through LAUS. B/D line trains can only run a combined every 2 minutes max and more likely every 3 minutes max because that's how metro does things. The A line will be able to run 10 tph from LAUS because of the regional connector. Will those totals be enough to satisfy demand? I don't think so, but it's debatable. Adding another 10 tph would be very helpful in balancing demands. This assumes that there is indeed a station at Little Tokyo. Without it, I think that we're out of balance again because that provides access to city jobs and Bunker Hill.
Meanwhile ending the WSAB at 8th takes riders where many assume they want to go (comments suggest otherwise), but eliminates an option for the many riders of both WSAB and the A line that don't want to go that way. Union Station, the Arts District, and Little Tokyo will all be huge destinations in the future as they are all proposed to grow significantly. This line should be built for 2040, not 2021.
That said there is no wrong answer imo. Each has pluses and minuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 7, 2021 19:18:45 GMT -8
I'm pretty much alone among transit enthusiasts in thinking that there are lots of good reasons to go to Union Station. My thinking isn't so much big picture and long term about "what's next", but practical regarding where people can go the fastest and how to balance congestion. More than 5 years ago when Metro train ridership was near an all time high I stood on the B/D mezzanine at Union Station at evening rush and observed how packed trains arrived every 5 minutes emptying riders heading for metrolink. With Link US, CAHSR, and the D line extension, there will be a huge increase in ridership through LAUS. B/D line trains can only run a combined every 2 minutes max and more likely every 3 minutes max because that's how metro does things. The A line will be able to run 10 tph from LAUS because of the regional connector. Will those totals be enough to satisfy demand? I don't think so, but it's debatable. Adding another 10 tph would be very helpful in balancing demands. This assumes that there is indeed a station at Little Tokyo. Without it, I think that we're out of balance again because that provides access to city jobs and Bunker Hill. Meanwhile ending the WSAB at 8th takes riders where many assume they want to go (comments suggest otherwise), but eliminates an option for the many riders of both WSAB and the A line that don't want to go that way. Union Station, the Arts District, and Little Tokyo will all be huge destinations in the future as they are all proposed to grow significantly. This line should be built for 2040, not 2021. That said there is no wrong answer imo. Each has pluses and minuses. If you look at the public comments received so far, there are many more comments that support the 7th/Metro option, and there are a lot of comments from Little Tokyo that don't support a specific alignment but don't want the alignment going to Union Station and passing by Little Tokyo. At least in Little Tokyo's case, I think concerns about construction are more warranted than other areas--they've had to endure 2 decades of construction for the Eastside Gold Line construction, followed afterwards by the Regional Connector construction, and adding WSAB construction will mean a third decade of construction impacts on the area. Here are all the public comments received so far: metro.commentinput.com/comment/extra?id=GtJAg |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 8, 2021 7:55:36 GMT -8
If you look at the public comments received so far, there are many more comments that support the 7th/Metro option, and there are a lot of comments from Little Tokyo that don't support a specific alignment but don't want the alignment going to Union Station and passing by Little Tokyo. At least in Little Tokyo's case, I think concerns about construction are more warranted than other areas--they've had to endure 2 decades of construction for the Eastside Gold Line construction, followed afterwards by the Regional Connector construction, and adding WSAB construction will mean a third decade of construction impacts on the area. Here are all the public comments received so far: metro.commentinput.com/comment/extra?id=GtJAgThanks. I'll take a look. My sense from what I've seen here and elsewhere is that people in the Gateway Cities are split between LAUS and 8th/Fig, with a slight majority preferring LAUS. People that don't live in the Gateway Cities overwhelmingly prefer 8th/Fig. And that there are lots of NIMBYs in Little Tokyo that don't want anything built there. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 8, 2021 10:25:08 GMT -8
How do they handle oral comments? Are they transcribed somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 8, 2021 10:45:05 GMT -8
How do they handle oral comments? Are they transcribed somewhere? I think the comments at the official EIR meetings are transcribed and are included in the Final EIR, along with Metro's canned responses to the comments, but I don't know if they will show up at any place before the Final EIR. So that's a good point, that link only shows written comments that were submitted at Metro's WSAB EIR website. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 23, 2021 13:24:54 GMT -8
Here’s an hour-long discussion of the WSAB draft EIR at the Little Tokyo Community Council, with the consultant they hired, Scott Frazier. He recommends the Union Station alignment with a Little Tokyo station as the option that would benefit Little Tokyo the most. He also recommends that they ask for a pedestrian tunnel to access the Regional Connector station, to have 2 portals for the Little Tokyo station, and the terminus at the MWD location. youtu.be/sP7hLleFwOU |
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Sept 23, 2021 14:28:07 GMT -8
Scott Frazier. He recommends the Union Station alignment with a Little Tokyo station as the option that would benefit Little Tokyo the most. Et tu, Scott? I would have expected the extremely loud protests from the Little Tokyo community against this alignment to have more weight in his analysis |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 23, 2021 15:09:59 GMT -8
Scott Frazier. He recommends the Union Station alignment with a Little Tokyo station as the option that would benefit Little Tokyo the most. Et tu, Scott? I would have expected the extremely loud protests from the Little Tokyo community against this alignment to have more weight in his analysis There are some people near the end, around the 53 minute and 59 minute marks, complaining about the construction impacts of the Regional Connector and how they are experiencing construction fatigue. I think construction impacts for Little Tokyo are more relevant than in other communities, as this would be the third line/station being built in their community in the last 3 decades (Gold Line Eastside Extension, Regional Connector and now WSAB). Unlike other communities that usually just have to deal with a couple of years of construction, Little Tokyo basically would have to deal with decades of it. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 27, 2021 19:23:37 GMT -8
Scott is not wrong in the sense that an alignment through Little Tokyo with a station would be of greatest benefit to the community.
The alternative is an alignment through Little Tokyo without a station, which is Metro's prefer solution on Alameda.
Either way, they got to put up with the construction.
Seem like Metro has given up on the far more logical solution of making WASB go to Metro Center. The political power broker are all lined up for Union Station which is a pity for future commuters trying to get somewhere and having to backtrack to Union Station and walk a mile to transfer to another rail line.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 28, 2021 12:34:03 GMT -8
Seem like Metro has given up on the far more logical solution of making WASB go to Metro Center. The political power broker are all lined up for Union Station which is a pity for future commuters trying to get somewhere and having to backtrack to Union Station and walk a mile to transfer to another rail line. Thanks for giving me the motivation for a last-minute comment calling out that non-transit riders overrate the importance of LAUS compared to direct access to destinations and not having to backtrack for the important transfers, among other things. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 29, 2021 6:26:09 GMT -8
Seem like Metro has given up on the far more logical solution of making WASB go to Metro Center. The political power broker are all lined up for Union Station which is a pity for future commuters trying to get somewhere and having to backtrack to Union Station and walk a mile to transfer to another rail line. Thanks for giving me the motivation for a last-minute comment calling out that non-transit riders overrate the importance of LAUS compared to direct access to destinations and not having to backtrack for the important transfers, among other things. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but WSAB riders looking to go to 7th/metro will be able to walk across the street at Slauson with an in-station transfer to the A line. Assuming that the LT station is built, riders could also transfer to the A/E lines with a street level in-station transfer. That's a large part of why I don't see the LAUS option as a poor one. I slightly prefer 8th as that sets us up for a future extension and is the most popular destination in the immediate future, but I'm fine if LAUS wins out (and I am a transit rider) assuming that a LT station is built. In my opinion, it's better to build new transit to destinations that aren't currently served before providing a somewhat duplicate service following a different route to the same place. Also, I think that in the longer term all of the Metrolink improvements along with HSR will make LAUS a more popular destination for WSAB riders. I won't regularly ride this line, but many of the commenters that live along the line have stated that they prefer the LAUS option. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 29, 2021 6:45:57 GMT -8
There are some people near the end, around the 53 minute and 59 minute marks, complaining about the construction impacts of the Regional Connector and how they are experiencing construction fatigue. I think construction impacts for Little Tokyo are more relevant than in other communities, as this would be the third line/station being built in their community in the last 3 decades (Gold Line Eastside Extension, Regional Connector and now WSAB). Unlike other communities that usually just have to deal with a couple of years of construction, Little Tokyo basically would have to deal with decades of it. You've said this before, but that's not what I see. The original Gold Line ELA extension skirts the eastern edge of LT. That construction greatly impacted the people along 1st from Alameda to Boyle Heights, but there was much less impact in LT. Even this new construction where the tracks east of Alameda were relocated and then the station demolished impacted people east of LT much more than LT itself. There were definitely impacts with the new underground station construction, but as a DTLA resident, I'd say that the LT station has been the least impactful of all Regional Connector stations, with the fewest street closures and for the shortest duration. Residents and businesses along Flower have had to deal with many more impacts and those impacts were more widespread and lasted longer because of the cut and cover. Additionally many of the comments that I read were by residents of the same property that felt that they would be unfairly impacted. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 29, 2021 12:08:57 GMT -8
Little Tokyo Community Council board voted to support the Union Station alignment, but split 51% (in favor) 49% (against) regarding a Little Tokyo station, so they do not provide a recommendation regarding a Little Tokyo station.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 29, 2021 13:05:10 GMT -8
Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but WSAB riders looking to go to 7th/metro will be able to walk across the street at Slauson with an in-station transfer to the A line. Assuming that the LT station is built, riders could also transfer to the A/E lines with a street level in-station transfer. West of downtown is much denser than east of it, so many more will be transferring to go that direction. LAUS/LT vs 7th means an extra 3 stops on the B/D/E in the direction most people are going, and leaves the Fashion District disconnected from the rail network. The ridership estimates showed that the A from Slauson is so slow lots of people were going to forego a one-seat ride and transfer to the new line just to get to 7th faster. And that few would continue on the A if this line stopped at Slauson, if you believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 29, 2021 13:21:01 GMT -8
I don't agree with their reasoning, but in the end if Alternative 1 is chosen, the Design Option 2 provides the best connections at LAUS.
My preferences are:
1a. Alternative 2 - 7th/metro to Pioneer,
1b. Alternative 1, Option 2 with the LT station
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 29, 2021 13:26:13 GMT -8
Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but WSAB riders looking to go to 7th/metro will be able to walk across the street at Slauson with an in-station transfer to the A line. Assuming that the LT station is built, riders could also transfer to the A/E lines with a street level in-station transfer. West of downtown is much denser than east of it, so many more will be transferring to go that direction. LAUS/LT vs 7th means an extra 3 stops on the B/D/E in the direction most people are going, and leaves the Fashion District disconnected from the rail network. The ridership estimates showed that the A from Slauson is so slow lots of people were going to forego a one-seat ride and transfer to the new line just to get to 7th faster. And that few would continue on the A if this line stopped at Slauson, if you believe it. The Fashion District gets a stop in either alternative and they are also getting a new station at 6th on the east side of the district. They are getting their fair share for sure. Other than that, I agree with everything that you say. If you're going to 7th/metro this would be the preferred route. My points are why duplicate an existing route to make it better when we can make an entirely new route? And LAUS will be a much bigger destination 10 years from now than it is now. I can't predict the future, but we know what the plans are regarding HSR and Metrolink and we should plan for those to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 1, 2021 12:02:31 GMT -8
Thanks for giving me the motivation for a last-minute comment calling out that non-transit riders overrate the importance of LAUS compared to direct access to destinations and not having to backtrack for the important transfers, among other things. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but WSAB riders looking to go to 7th/metro will be able to walk across the street at Slauson with an in-station transfer to the A line. Assuming that the LT station is built, riders could also transfer to the A/E lines with a street level in-station transfer. That's a large part of why I don't see the LAUS option as a poor one. I slightly prefer 8th as that sets us up for a future extension and is the most popular destination in the immediate future, but I'm fine if LAUS wins out (and I am a transit rider) assuming that a LT station is built. In my opinion, it's better to build new transit to destinations that aren't currently served before providing a somewhat duplicate service following a different route to the same place. Also, I think that in the longer term all of the Metrolink improvements along with HSR will make LAUS a more popular destination for WSAB riders. I won't regularly ride this line, but many of the commenters that live along the line have stated that they prefer the LAUS option. I've already explains this many times before in this thread and you just don't want to understand it. Metro's ridership study shows the biggest portion of riders (a plurality) on WASB is going WEST beyond DTLA to USC/Mid City/West LA/Santa Monica. Add in those that are headed to Garment/toy/flower district (which has no station now) and financial district, it shows a clear majority of the riders that would benefit in a direct routing to Metro Center that enables 1-transfer ride to ALL those destination. This applies to riders headed to Chinatown or SGV too... 1-transfer only at Metro Center. Equitable outcome for everyone going beyond the financial district. The Slauson transfer doesn't do anything for the riders headed to USC or West LA. They still need 2 transfers if WASB goes to Union Station - once at Slauson, and 2nd time at Metro Center. The logic of that transfer also doesn't work because if you are going beyond DTLA, you want to be on the "express" train (WASB), not the "local" train (A-line). Why would you want to transfer at Slauson? Only reason would be a bad network design that forces this inconvenient and illogical transfer to a local line on the "wrong" side of DTLA. Union Station routing is also potentially disastrous for riders heading to northern part of DTLA (e.g. the Govt and Court buildings near 101 freeway) if Metro decides to skip building a Little Tokyo transfer station. It means you have to back track from Union Station, or take the slow "local" train from Slauson. Both huge time waster. The routing to Metro Center doesn't detract from your rosy Union Station projection. WASB riders can still get to CAHSR with 1-transfer at Metro Center. And the transfer at Metro Center is much higher quality (1/2 block walk) than the one at Union Station (up to 1 mile) depending on where they put the station. If someone living in in SE LA County wants to take Metrolink or CAHSR, I predict the total travel time from end to end will be shorter if WASB is routed to Metron Center despite a transfer vs. direct to Union Station. - WASB to 7th Street, 1/2 block walk, B or D line to Union Station, short walk upstairs to Metrolink or CAHSR platform.
- WASB to Union Station, up to 1 mile walk: exit station, cross street to Union Station, walk thru tunnel, walk upstairs to Metrolink or CAHSR platform.
I'll take my chances with 1/2 block walk and frequent transfer at Metro Center over a long walk near Union Station that doesn't put me right under Metrolink platform. BTW, I seriously think you are overselling the WASB to Metrolink or CAHSR transfers at Union Station. Let's tackle Metrolink first... Who do you think is doing this commute now (or in the future): Ventura to/from Cerritos or San Bernardino to/from South Gate. Because that's who will benefit from a WASB Union Station to Metrolink transfer. This group (if it exists) is tiny compare to people doing Southgate to USC or Bell Flower to UCLA commute which will benefit from WASB Metro Center to A/E or B/D transfer. I will conceded that if Metrolink is electrified and starts running all-day EMU service, then you may find WASB to Venture line or WASB to Antelope Valley line somewhat useful for the SE LA to SFV commuters. But the majority of riders on Metrolink is still going to be those terminating in DTLA rather than thru-riders like on WASB. The geometry of the LA rail network means thru-riders are using Metro Center while terminating riders use Union Station. That won't change in the future. You also seem to forget there will be a CAHSR station at Norwalk. Would someone living in Bell Flower or Artesia seriously take WASB to Union Station to catch CAHSR? No, they would Uber or get dropped off at CAHSR station at Norwalk which is right down the street. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 2, 2021 7:15:30 GMT -8
I've already explains this many times before in this thread and you just don't want to understand it. Metro's ridership study shows the biggest portion of riders (a plurality) on WASB is going WEST beyond DTLA to USC/Mid City/West LA/Santa Monica. Add in those that are headed to Garment/toy/flower district (which has no station now) and financial district, it shows a clear majority of the riders that would benefit in a direct routing to Metro Center that enables 1-transfer ride to ALL those destination. This applies to riders headed to Chinatown or SGV too... 1-transfer only at Metro Center. Equitable outcome for everyone going beyond the financial district. To be clear my preferred option is to terminate at 8th. But I can see the benefits of an option that goes to the center of LAUS with a stop at LT. Now that that's out of the way... Link? Is this a ridership study of existing bus riders within the corridor? Or are you confusing a study of existing commute patterns (mostly by car) with a ridership study? Because that was completed by SCAG and they anticipated the line going to LAUS. The studies in the DEIR are of commute patterns in and out of the study area and focus where people that leave the study area are heading and where people that enter the study area come from. It's not granular enough that it details which parts of the study area people enter and exit from. That said, I concur that existing commute patterns generally head west to employment centers. E line westbound transfers are actually at Pico, but yes I understand that WSAB riders heading west on the D line (and there will be many) will greatly benefit from the 8th street terminal. Still some riders are going to have to backtrack regardless. For example, about 30-40% of A line riders that transfer at 7th/metro currently transfer to the B/D heading east. They likely won't make that transfer once the connector opens, but that's a separate discussion. My recollection is that the percentage of WSAB wanting to compete journeys entirely on the east side is expected to be pretty high. Any WSAB riders heading to the government employment centers and services around LT station, LAUS or destinations North and East will be forced to backtrack. The difference is that they won't have a rail alternative that makes the same journey. Yeah the A is worse, but at least it exists. Agreed. I don't support a LAUS alternative that doesn't have a station at LT. It's literally a full block walk. One platform is in the middle of 7th and the proposed platform will be the middle of 8th. I don't think that's a bad walk, so there's no need to be misleading about the actual locations. Similarly the proposed station on Alameda is exactly the same distance from the LAUS train platforms as the distance between 7th and 8th. Similarly both transfers involve changing levels and walking, so that point is moot. To be clear, my support is for Alternative 1, Option 2, with a LT station, so I don't support the station on Alameda, but that's probably the 3rd best remaining Option. Don't forget that there will also be high speed trains to Las Vegas, not just CAHSR. Regarding CAHSR at Norwalk, hopefully there's a C line extension and passengers will be able to make the entire journey by train. |
|
