LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[craigs]

From Urbanize LA's Facebook page:

At a ceremony held within the future Wilshire/Fairfax Station, L.A. transportation officials marked the completion of tunneling work on the nine-mile extension of the D (Purple) Line to the Westside.

Under construction since 2019, the $9.5-billion project is split into three phases, and serves neighborhoods including the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood. The corridor includes seven new stops located at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Cienega, Wilshire/Rodeo, Century City, Wilshire/Westwood, and a terminus at the VA Campus.

The first segment of the project, spanning to La Cienega, is set to open next year. The second phase to Century City is expected to follow in 2026, and the final phase running to the VA Campus west of the 405 Freeway is expected to open in 2027.
. . . .

[Quixote]

^ It looks like the new D Line stations will continue the theme of having a more pared-back, utilitarian aesthetic similar to the Regional Connector. That's fine. By the time this thing opens, it will have been about 20 years of patient waiting.

We've got to find a way to make grade-separated HRT, both subway and elevated, more affordable so that we can build new lines and extensions quicker and contemporaneously.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ It looks like the new D Line stations will continue the theme of having a more pared-back, utilitarian aesthetic similar to the Regional Connector. That's fine. By the time this thing opens, it will have been about 20 years of patient waiting.

It's a shame because the public's perception of the system is largely centered around the aesthetics of the stations. Washington, DC and Baltimore run the same trains but Washington has the better reputation because of the station designs.

Also, it's easier to create multiple station entrances (and especially more exits) with cut-and-cover construction.

[Busy Bee]

Without doing a bunch of google searching, what's the best place to find station rendering for the extension? Metro project website? Architect?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's a shame because the public's perception of the system is largely centered around the aesthetics of the stations. Washington, DC and Baltimore run the same trains but Washington has the better reputation because of the station designs.

Also, it's easier to create multiple station entrances (and especially more exits) with cut-and-cover construction.

I think you’re overstating the importance of aesthetics here. DC’s favorable reputation is largely derived from how it compares to the NYC Subway (low reference point) — cleaner, newer, more escalators and elevators, more spacious, etc. The vaulted ceilings are just icing.

NYC Subway stations’ dingy aesthetic is more salient because the stations are also old, dirty, compact, lacking in infrastructure, and a recent surge in concerns about safety.

Multiple station entrances on the other hand do augment perception. I recently visited Tokyo and Hong Kong, where many subway stations have 6-7 exits. Those are justifiable because they have the ridership to support it and the city blocks there tend to be tighter.

[Illithid Dude]

Station aesthetics could not matter less. The Seoul and Tokyo subways have minimal, utilitarian designs, and they are considered the best in the world. DC has a favorably considered subway not because of its design, but because it covers the city and gets you where you need to go fast. That's what is most important in a subway.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

That's what is most important in a subway.

Cars aren't really a viable alternative in NYC and the big cities in Asia. They absolutely are in Washington, DC, as well as Los Angeles.

The challenge in Los Angeles as well as the majority of the United States is to lure people out of their own cars or away from cabs/rideshare. Design is a huge part of attracting transit riders or scaring them away.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Design is a huge part of attracting transit riders or scaring them away.

Many of LA's subway stations are notably well-designed and interesting, and we still haven't attracted sufficient transit riders to the system. Why didn't station design and aesthetics attract more transit riders? Because they don't matter.

[Nouvellecosse]

Well, I wouldn't say the design doesn't matter. The design is like the icing on a cake. Many people appreciate it and would purchase a beautiful cake over a plain one or want to try a cake that looks amazing. But the icing is an "in addition to" thing. It can't really replace any of the fundamentals like if the cake is dry or flavourless. If a metro system has other problems such security issues, a lack of frequency / reliability or not being supported by wider urban development patterns then it doesn't make sense to ask why design didn't make up those shortcomings. Well, any more than asking why putting icing on a flavourless cake doesn't suddenly make it popular. In other words, being less important than some other things isn't the same as having no importance at all.

[SoCalKid]

^ couldn't agree more. Right now we just need to build as much high quality transit as possible in the quickest amount of time for the lowest cost. Once we establish a true metro-wide network of rail that's used by a good chunk of the public, then it would be great to go back and add in some "icing". I think some of those Red/B line stations are pretty cool and would be fun especially for tourists, but as the system stands now, we're not going to get a significant number of tourists riding it.

Those pictures of the D line extension make me feel like a little kid seeing Christmas toys through the store window. I can't wait for this to open, I think it will be the single most transformative rail line in the modern era of LA transit. The ability to go from Westwood to DTLA in ~25 minutes is going to really shift the public's view of transit in a way that the slow ass E line couldn't.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

The ability to go from Westwood to DTLA in ~25 minutes is going to really shift the public's view of transit in a way that the slow ass E line couldn't.

When I rode the new connector line several months ago, what stood out about the expo line were the sections that aren't grade separated & slowed down the whole experience. But I've read ppl mentioning that the current subway running under wilshire blvd, although faster & more direct, has issues with sketchy users, sketchy behavior. So nice looking stations, greater speed & convenience also depend on cleanliness & safety, mentioned in this vid...


• Video Link

[Easy]

Originally Posted by citywatch

When I rode the new connector line several months ago, what stood out about the expo line were the sections that aren't grade separated & slowed down the whole experience. But I've read ppl mentioning that the current subway running under wilshire blvd, although faster & more direct, has issues with sketchy users, sketchy behavior. So nice looking stations, greater speed & convenience also depend on cleanliness & safety, mentioned in this vid...

I've also read online the B/D have gotten more sketchy, which is hard to even comprehend given how sketchy it was 2020-2023. I've ridden the A, C, and E lines quite a bit lately, but not the B or D, so I can't say. But the light rail lines seem very much improved to me. Not perfect, but more like prepandemic, which still wasn't very good.

Objectively, weekday light rail ridership increased year-over-year in February by about 20,000 riders. The bad news is that the B/D dropped by nearly the same total leaving overall ridership essentially flat. The B/D have lost 25% of their weekday ridership in the last year. 84,000 daily riders down to 63,000. That's terrible news. It's a death spiral that was self-inflicted by metro when they nearly completely abandoned security. Riders don't trust metro to keep them safe.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's a shame because the public's perception of the system is largely centered around the aesthetics of the stations. Washington, DC and Baltimore run the same trains but Washington has the better reputation because of the station designs.

Also, it's easier to create multiple station entrances (and especially more exits) with cut-and-cover construction.

I think that the aesthetics of LA heavy rail stations are comparable to WMATA and agree that spaces should e designed for human occupancy, which is to say visually pleasing. I can't speak for the new stations but given that they have huge budgets for artwork, I expect that they will be aesthetically pleasing as well. LA is trying to do more consistent branding with more consistent design, similar to how DC has long been doing, so each station should look similar but have different artwork.

Cut and cover likely makes building entrances easier simply because they're closer to the surface. Keep in mind that while tunneling is used for deep bore, the stations themselves are essentially cut and cover.

[DJM19]

Metro does not make stations as fanciful as its red line days, but they are quite handsome still. The regional connector stations show what most stations will look like and they are quite nice inside.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well, I wouldn't say the design doesn't matter.

Somehow, per a few of these posters, design matters in all realms except public transportation.

[edale]

Originally Posted by craigs

Many of LA's subway stations are notably well-designed and interesting, and we still haven't attracted sufficient transit riders to the system. Why didn't station design and aesthetics attract more transit riders? Because they don't matter.

If design and aesthetics don't matter, are you of the opinion that Metro has wasted, and continues to waste, millions of dollars trying to make the stations look attractive? Personally, I would say yes, the way we approach design in our metro stations is a waste of money, and only adds cost to our outrageously expensive projects.

Personally, I agree with SoCalKid that aesthetics are basically the icing on the cake. Few people will decide to use transit because of station design alone. Trains need to go where people want to go. People have to be able to quickly and easily get to stations from their homes/offices (first mile/last mile). Stations and trains have to be safe and clean. Trains need to come often and adhere to posted schedules. Those are the things that primarily influence whether or not people will take transit over driving. If these conditions are met, station design can be an added bonus to entice choice riders and tourists who might be on the fence about using transit vs other modes, but I can't imagine there are too many people who fall into this camp. Afterall, our busiest transit station (maybe second behind Union Station), 7th Street Metro Center, largely lacks public art, and I don't hear many people complaining about it, though I do know it's getting a little facelift at the moment.

I find LA's subway station designs to be a bit tacky, actually. I love the brutalist vaulted ceiling design of the DC metro, and how basically every station utilizes this design language. It ties the system together and gives it a distinct look. LA's subway stations are loaded with art and gimmicky design (people floating on the ceiling at civic center, for example) that are interesting I suppose, but can look dated and give the appearance of an unserious transit system. Each station has a totally different look, so there's no unified design approach that makes a station look classically LA. Some stations look more like the entrance to a ride at Universal Studios than a subway station. Who cares if there are murals and mosaics and neon lights in the station if it smells like piss and you're waiting 12 mins for a train at rush hour?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Aesthetics and design absolutely do matter but safety, cleanliness and of course better headways are more important.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

I love the brutalist vaulted ceiling design of the DC metro, and how basically every station utilizes this design language. It ties the system together and gives it a distinct look. LA's subway stations are loaded with art and gimmicky design (people floating on the ceiling at civic center, for example) that are interesting I suppose, but can look dated and give the appearance of an unserious transit system.

I've always thought that the conspicuously non-figurative design motif of the Washington Metro was motivated in part to avoid having mosaics defaced and statues toppled when political fashion switches directions. For example, imagine the uproar from the bullhorn & Twitter crowd if the metro stations were festooned with the U.S. counterparts to the artwork that still fills the Soviet and other communist subway stations.

I think that La's "look" is the idealistic futurism from art deco through the 1960s, as typified by the Capitol Records building, the many art deco buildings throughout the area, and even the shallow triangular roofline of Dodger Stadium's outfield bleachers. The curved concrete of the elevated stations on the Expo line actually have a little bit of this look.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I've always thought that the conspicuously non-figurative design motif of the Washington Metro was motivated in part to avoid having mosaics defaced and statues toppled when political fashion switches directions. For example, imagine the uproar from the bullhorn & Twitter crowd if the metro stations were festooned with the U.S. counterparts to the artwork that still fills the Soviet and other communist subway stations.

I hear what you're saying but I have my doubts that was at all on Harry Weese's mind.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

If design and aesthetics don't matter, are you of the opinion that Metro has wasted, and continues to waste, millions of dollars trying to make the stations look attractive?

I don't know how the artwork is/was funded, so I cannot say. I will say that maintaining what we have is not necessarily wasteful--I generally support the conservation of public assets.

My main point was to question the lament about new stations being more utilitarian, which is rooted in the belief that station design "attracts or repels" ridership enough to matter. I don't believe that is true in Los Angeles. As the photos show, LA already already has good station designs (especially compared with systems like BART), along with low ridership. Other forumers have correctly noted that design can perhaps matter, somewhat, but design is way down the list of factors that drive high ridership here.