Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
OTOH, Alt E provides access to Union Station, including buses, Amtrak, Metrolink, and future HSR, and better supports development along the Alameda corridor through the Arts District which has no rail transit at the moment. I would prefer to see an additional station in this zone, maybe ones at Olympic, 6th and Little Tokyo between 1st/2nd.
|
You are mistaken about option E providing access to Metrolink and HSR. I think this is the reason why there are still people supporting option E. Metro is not being very forth coming about where option E will end but we know it WILL NOT be at Union Station because there is no room and Metro's Union Station plans which is pretty much locked in at this point. Metrolink, and HSR are also on the record opposing option E ending AT Union Station because doing so may interfere with their operations. Metro just went through a EIR on the Union Station rebuild and reached an agreement with Metrolink and HSR on how it will be setup and I see very little chance it will be changed. So basically, WASB will not end at Union Station.
The most likely result for Option E is it will put WASB somewhere between 1/4 or 1/2 of a mile in front of Union Station in a separate underground station. There won't be any easy transfers between WASB and existing Red/Purple or Gold (Blue) lines.
In order to transfer to HSR or Amtrak/Metrolink, there will be quite a hike. So would transfers to Red/Purple and Gold (Blue) line.
In contrast, option G should provide easy transfers to either Red/Purple or Blue/Expo, which will then provide a fairly short ride to the actual Union Station (not 1/4 mile away) and facilitate easy transfers to Amtrak or HSR.
Also, both Option E and G will have the same routing to lower part of Art District where you would like to see a new station.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
I see the image but I don't know what it represents (no link was posted). What are the dots? Current transit riders to DTLA from along the WSAB corridor, who currently get downtown via the Blue Line or express buses? Or is it a survey of potential riders? Or not even a survey at all, but just something spat out by a computer model?
|
The dots represent WASB rider destinations from Metro's modeling and analysis. Their data suggest vast majority of WASB riders are headed to Downtown transit core and adjacent areas (e.g. garment district), and the West side. And virtually none to Union Station area and northeast LA.
So Metro's own study so far suggests that taking WASB to Union Station (option E) will be a force transfer for the vast majority of riders. Whereas as option G to Transit Core is a real one-seat ride solution. And it is a much better transfer for WASB riders headed to the West side.
Read more about it here:
https://twitter.com/safrazie/status/...on%3Fpage%3D11
Quote:
Anyway, I'm not sure the network structure of NY, Chicago or DC is appropriate for LA. Rather than sending a bunch of train lines into one concentrated area, it seems better to spread out in a grid with convenient transfers like Mexico City or Shanghai. Only 7% of LA's jobs are located within 3 miles of the CBD (source), so if LA is ever gonna get people off the freeways and onto trains it has to spread out instead of concentrate... as I noted before, going to Union Station with WSAB better matches up with a grid model, and offers better opportunities for a future extension beyond DTLA to other job centers. I'm sure Metro's planners are thinking along similar lines, or else they would have ruled out Alt E long ago.
|
The grid model is based on easy transfers. Without ease of transfer, there is no grid. Option E as I already explained, lack transfer options. It ends at best 1/4 mile away from Union Station and will require riders to walk a long ways to reach their next train.
Option G build up the grid but adding new transfer points to the existing system. And it has the added benefit of going to where people want to go, which eliminates a transfer.