German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseThe Subway Formerly Known as the Purple Line.
For Koreatown residents, the last few months have just been a Disaster. Yes, a Disaster. Capital D.
This Disaster comes about because of the bizarre amount of track work that needs to be done between MacArthur Park and Vermont/Beverly. On most weekday nights, a “diversion is in effect” on the Purple Line, one which diverts the Purple Line out of existence and turns it into a very heavy DASH shuttle. The usual Disaster involves running Red Line service like usual, while running The Subway Formerly Known as the Purple Line as a shuttle between Western and Vermont, stopping at the wrong platforms on the westbound segment.
The confusion this Disaster creates is somewhere between “unbelievable” and “insurmountable.” Sometimes, Metro announces the Disaster over the intercom. Sometimes, you can even understand the announcement. Sometimes, the Disaster is announced via the worthless LED screens. Sometimes, said announcement is even accurate - it regularly states that the Disaster will only occur on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, yet the Disaster occurs with regularity on Wednesday nights, including last night.
Inquiries as to what, precisely, brought this about have led nowhere. Metro appears disinclined to explain precisely what needs to be done in the Downtown segments of the subway which requires such a routing. Quite honestly, in the time that the Disaster has been going on, they could have built an underground five-star hotel between Westlake and Vermont.
Usually, not everybody understands what’s going on. Announcements are usually only in English, and often there are people who are, for example, not regular riders, or from out of town, and they invariably don’t understand the scale of the Disaster. Most nights I’ve been caught in the unflinching jaws of the Disaster, I’ve had to give detailed explanations to at least one person, and because it seems that Metro rank-and-file are not being told, precisely, what precipitated the Disaster, train drivers are themselves understandably becoming irritated, and their patience with questions has worn thin in recent weeks.
So, the question I therefore put to you. Does anyone have the slightest clue as to what’s going on?
My concern is that Metro is doing this because ridership east of Vermont may be low due to the relative lack of late-night attractions in Downtown. This may well be the case, and this may be a logical solution to the problem. However, they’re going to have to indicate a permanent diversion such as this on all maps, and they’re going to have to start using the correct platforms for westbound trains, because signage is only worth using if it is always accurate.
Can anyone shine some light on this issue? And for the love of God, can Metro start putting this on metro.net so that people can figure it out before they leave for the day? I’ve put in comments to Metro about this before, to have them apologize and assert that they will start putting the announcement on the website. Well, if anyone in the Taj Mahal is reading, I don’t see anything about the Disaster on the Rail Service Alerts page yet.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
So, you would rather have them shut down the entire line as they do their work? Welcome to reality. Infrastructure requires maintenance, be it a subway, a freeway, a street or a sewer. Thing must be done to perform the work as well as to continue service. People who ride NYC’s 24-hour subway are used to it.
Part of the work that’s going on Downtown is the installation of the MetroVue TPIS systems - the pretty video screens that Metro Rider is reporting about. The screens are large and so are the equipment needed to install them. Being in a subway, you can’t just have these things come in from the street, they must be wheeled in via special Maintenance-Of-Way railcars. Metro plans to have these screens on all Metro Rail stations, so expect some of this on other lines as well.
Whoa, M.A., I’ll re-read my post to clarify that I didn’t say what you took away from it.
The point of my post was this:
My concern is that Metro is doing this because ridership east of Vermont may be low due to the relative lack of late-night attractions in Downtown.
I live in K-Town, and I have never seen any evidence of any work. That doesn’t mean that it’s not going on, but after months of a diversion without any clear understanding of whether or not there is any work being done to start with, I and others have become frustrated. New York has a lot of subway disruptions, I used to live there, but they rebuilt the West Side IRT signal system after the massive circuit fire in a faster time than it’s taking Metro to upgrade their video screen network.
Here’s what I want Metro to do.
1) Post updates about the diversion to the Metro website so that workday commuters can get information about the diversion before leaving work.
2) Record a clear, recorded announcement in English and Spanish, to play on repeat in Wilshire/Vermont after 9pm.
3) Post clear signs in English and Spanish in W/Vermont, W/Normandie and W/Western to explain what’s going on.
That’s what I want, M.A. - of course I want the network upgrades, they’re desperately needed. But why are they taking this long, and why isn’t Metro keeping Koreatown customers informed?
Considering they are already doing the maintenance during evening hours already, I also have to wonder why they wouldn’t do most of the work during the nighttime shutdown period, since we do have rail lines that shutdown every night anyways.
Matthew, you’re right, they’re only gaining 2.5 hours doing this, the last Koreatown train would normally arrive at Western at 11:40, if I recall correctly, so they’re not really gaining much time here. Having said that, by doing this they are completely abandoning the westbound tracks after 9pm - is that what’s needed? We’ll never know, not without some info from Metro.
It sort of reminds me of getting a street cleaning parking ticket when you never see any actual evidence the streets are ever cleaned. Unfortunately, that’s life in urban cities. Parking tickets, including those for theoretical street cleaning, are considered an important revenue stream, whether or not the streets actually get cleaned.
As for the subway maintenance issue, one of the arguments for shutting down the subways in London at night is that the rails do not have to be interrupted during the day.
Of course, London has an extensive “Owl bus system” that puts Los Angeles to shame” where you can basically get anywhere after the Tube closes via Trafalgar Square.
But there should be more and better information.
In some cities, the subways will have signs telling you when the next trains arrive for each destination. Some even have bus stations that do that.
Often they don’t collect that information themselves. During Willie Brown’s first term in SF, there were some big MUNI breakdowns. One gentleman was on the N-line in a car stuck for over ninety minutes. He used his cell phone and called MUNI customer service and asked if there were any delays he should know about. The hapless customer service representative said, “we don’t show any delays”. He said, “what about the train I’m sitting on?”
Giving proper information to customers is the most basic of necessities so they can plan or alter their plan accordingly. It also mandates that a transit system keep itself informed.
At the Rapid Line on Wilshire, there are signs that are supposed to tell you when the next one is arriving. “Next bus arriving in __ minutes.” Sometimes it just says, “next bus delayed”. What the hell does that mean? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? a bus that is supposed to run every ten minutes has four bunched up buses arriving after 40 minutes?
I also get upset when the maps are incorrect, such as the Line 704 map which states you can catch the 920 at Wilshire. (Yes, the 920 runs on Wilshire, but doesn’t stop at Santa Monica.) That maps also fails to mention you can transfer to the 714 in Beverly Hills. Sigh.
Getting proper information to their customers is something that all transit systems need to do well and do well consistently.
Er, maybe they’re putting up those screens so they can give you that information you’re looking for
I TOTALLY agree that there should be information on the Metro website about this diversion. In fact this diversion, as you point out, is so frequent that the text could become a permanent fixture that is added or removed as needed. I follow the service alerts as much or more than anyone and I don’t recall ever seeing this one listed, but I often see it on the information displays when I’m on the blue or red lines.
I also wonder what might be happening. I suspect that it really is track work although I don’t know what it would entail.
It’s almost comical to see how passengers react to such things. When they have a bus bridge on the blue line they normally post it in the stations and the T/O will make several announcements before and after stopping. Nearly everyone will get off the train and head for the bus, but it NEVER fails that there will be at least a few people, that speak english, that just can’t figure out what’s going on. They normally end up screaming at the nearest Metro employee that no announcements were ever made and that the MTA is full of sh!t, but I guess they never wonder where the other 400 people on the train ran off to!
speaking of… whats up with the green line during the day? I’ve been late for work everyday the last few weeks because the green line is not running according to schedule but not a word about it on metro website.
Not to change the topic, but I will since things are probably light around here for another week or so.
Speaking of… the Green Line, the Green Line has been the biggest muddle thus far. There is debate about whether it should go directly to the terminals or to a transit center and to Sepulveda/Lincoln, with a people mover going to the terminals from a transit hub station (my preferred option).
It’s so odd to be the line that is one stop short in many ways. The Redondo Beach branch could go one stop more to the South Bay Galleria. The eastern terminus could go one stop more to Metrolink, and one stop more to LAX. The fact that the terminals don’t go to either of these three places is discouraging to say the least. I wonder if an Authority could be created to expand to all three of these terminals. Hopefully as part of going to LAX, there will be a tracks built at the Blue Line intersection so a “one seat” ride to the LAX station from downtown.
In any event, the Green line has SUCH potential. The Sepulveda/Lincoln branch could one day branch off to a Lincoln branch and a long desired Sepulveda Branch to UCLA, over the pass, up the valley to Metrolink. A Green line running from Metrolink to Metrolink with a stop at the LAX transit center would be heaven.
Isn’t it time to abandon naming the lines by color? The “Chartruese” Line, the “Mauve” Line. Why not letters or numbers or a different type of naming system. The 4,5,6 lines in New York all use Green on the maps, the 1,2,3 all use red. We could have Green 1, Green 2, Green 3, etc.
In any event. That’s other information prospective transit riders wish we heard. Why the Green Line didn’t end up terminating at any of the 3 most desired locations.
Back to our regularly scheduled lull…
http://www.art-poetry.info/id16.html
It seems that the Green Line kind of was forced to be constructed so that Interstate 105 can be made. There was a consent decree that required many “green” elements to be part of the proposed I-105 freeway, including the current Green Line. So in a way, LA wanted a new freeway, but light rail has to come with it; so it was built as best as it could, but shortened where there was opposition: from neighborhoods in Norwalk for the eastern end, and some taxi coalition at LAX. I don’t recall any opposition to the southward movement to South Bay Galleria; so I wonder why Metro stopped the line near what was used to be TRW (Marine/Redondo)?
Tony: At the time when the Green Line was planned, it was still the Reagan-era Cold War, and there were aerospace industry jobs aplenty in the El Segundo leg of the line. Of course, as they poured the concrete for the line and the 105, in another continent, the concrete wall of Berlin was being knocked down and by the time the Green Line opened, the aerospace industry had drastically changed. That is the reason why the Green Line goes nowhere — ut was planned to go a major employment center, but the politico-economic climate had changed.
It’s not necessarily nowhere anymore… the El Segundo Employment Center is coming back again due to the office buildings, many of them in a square between Mariposa/Nash/El Segundo/Sepulveda. I’ve been working a clerkship at a law firm at Sepulveda/Grand and taking the Green Line down to Mariposa daily - the inbound green line after work is usually packed, to the point that at rush hour the green line is more crowded than the blue line. Campus El Segundo is going to make life even more interesting down that way, and a nice retail area has been growing up at Douglas/Rosecrans - I’ve stopped off there to take care of some shopping after work more than once.
This doesn’t mean it has more ridership - the green line runs smaller cars with less frequent headways. But it’s starting to get some business, and I’m hoping that Metro starts to run 3-car trains or more frequent headways, because I’m getting somewhat claustrophobic on that commute. I can usually get a seat on the blue line, but *never* on the Green Line, even though I board before Aviation!
Having said that, only a handful of Green Line stations are actually destinations, most of them are transfer points.
Good to hear that the Green Line didn’t go to waste with the aerospace industry going down. I was on the line two weeks ago and notice that Douglas Street around the Douglas/Rosecrans station is being connected at both ends via a trenched underpass; it is still under construction.
Militant Angeleno is right.
Also, there was considerable opposition to the LAX routing, by (of all people) the Airport Commission, who actually got the FAA to rule that the trains would constitute a navigation hazard by potentially interfering with aircraft radios.
As for Norwalk, they refused to allow the Green Line to be built through their city to the Metrolink station unless it was entirely undergrounded. I think you can guess that there wasn’t money for that.
There’s something wrong if the FAA would believe that the trains would actually interfere with the aircraft radios, of all the things out there that are more likely to interfere, they believed that…???
I wonder if the opinion in Norwalk has changed over the years…
Are there any other instances of airports with open-wire trolley systems near them? That FAA ruling always sounded a bit fishy to me…
As for getting “to LAX”…just about anything reasonable to build (i.e. not trying to have the Green Line serve all nine terminals) would require some sort of ancilliary transit anyway. There was this long running idea to have a “people mover” serve the Green Line at either Aviation or a new station at the current Lot C Transit Center. The people mover, which would also serve hotels and car rental lots, would then provide service into each one of the terminals, along the loop….
Yes, CPH: Philadelphia runs their commuter rail (Line R1) straight through the airport terminals like people wanted to do with the green line - although it’s commuter rail, it’s powered by overhead concatenation, like a streetcar system. Boston’s Blue Line is a heavy rail subway powered by overhead concatenation (unique in the US so far as I know), it switches from third rail to overhead AT the Airport station, which isn’t in the airport itself but closer than our Aviation station (they have an identical problem that we do, you take the subway to the Airport station and then a decrepit shuttle to your terminal).
And this is only the cities whose transit I know decently well. The ruling is perplexing to me.
By the way, is the JFK AirTrain overhead concatenation or third rail? That may be another example, but I don’t personally remember which it is.
The London Tube also goes to the airport directly.
In this post-9/11 world, even though I personally wouldn’t mind the Green Line going to the terminals, if it is much politically easier to go with the people mover model, I’m comfortable with that.
Both JFK’a Air Train and Newark’s people mover work fine.
In fact, I’d rather go with the people mover model if that get’s the Green Line where it can either branch of into a Lincoln LRT someday or the long-desired Sepulveda LRT up to UCLA over into the Valley up to Metrolink. I still have this Metrolink to Metrolink vision for the Green Line.
The LAX Green Line story is long, convoluted and easy to explain in ten words:
The City of Los Angeles makes millions in LAX parking.
Are there any questions?
Maybe if they charged 5 bucks for a ride on the people mover like at JFK, they would make millions there too. And something tells me they will still make money from parking. Isn’t that what you have always argued, that people will always drive no matter how good the rail network is?
Johnny,
Sure, they -could- have done that. Not now. Now it means a zero sum game after hundreds of millions in investment.
The problem is parking is absolutely, both in theory and practice at the local and global maxima. Anything that upsets the supply/price/demand equation will result in less money.
Pricing premiums are immoral but I understand them and even encourage them. I am a regular rider of #653. Scheduled, LAMTA, perfectly ordinary? Nope. One way is $5. Return trips are free.
Back on topic. LAMTA doesn’t even cover operating costs with fares. Are you going to “extend?” You cannot because they’d lose even more. Are you going to spend hundreds of millions for a special service? You could but never recover costs. Besides we all know gypsy and regular cabs would decant most customers.
Here is the problem. Right now you have Lots ABC withsingle seat free rides to the gates. The Lots charge $30, $10, $8 per day. $5 charges for a $4 one time single seat ride won’t come even remotely close.
The JFK AirTrain is a third rail system, and it uses a linear induction motor for propulsion.
I would imagine the parking lots wouldn’t take that much of a hit from some kind of rail to the airport, I would think that the taxis and shuttle services would take more of a hit (and anything to decrease vehicle traffic going through LAX would be a good thing).
Personally I think a people mover system with a connection to the green line would make the most sense. It could even connect with the green line Aviation station if needed (I believe that JFK’s connection to Jamaica station is longer than that would be), plus it would make it possible to direct recoup a lot of the cost of building it. I would prefer the green line came closer to LAX, and later on down Sepulveda and/or Lincoln, although that is partially because it would bring the green line closer to me…
I think an airport congestion charge to help pay for a people mover and a Green Line extension to Sepulveda/Lincoln is a marvellous idea.
Dan,
Surely you don’t mean a straight congestion charge. Perhaps you mean a POV congestion charge?
A POV charge is a place to start.
Isn’t $10/day parking a POV charge? What more do you suggest and where should the money go? You know that reduced revenues from LAX parking would directly impact transit right?
I see things big picture here. LAX is a disaster. It’s a mess. We all know it. To summarize a bit below.
Westchester residents who can’t keep their traps shut regarding airport noise: Hello? You moved next to an airport? Do you have a brain? LAX has been there for a long time, they no longer have an excuse, it’s not like LAX opened last week, or even 20 years ago. If LAX drives down property values, so be it, it has to be somewhere, unless we want to go Kyoto and build an artificial island in Santa Monica Bay. And you thought a Green Line extension would be expensive, I can’t wait to see the cost estimate on the new Los Angeles-Marina del Rey Island Airport.
The airport has crumbling facilities: It’s sort of like trying to crazy-glue your spear as the Roman Army is crashing down upon you. Which terminal do you close to renovate and, thus, creating air traffic congestion nightmares? Which airline(s) do you risk alienating? Burbank, John Wayne, Ontario, and LA/Palmdale would all be happy to have them.
And finally, the one we’re trying to solve, traffic and access: Traffic is a nightmare, and it pours not only onto the 405 and 105, but also onto Sepulveda, Lincoln, and Century.
So, yes, I think it’s time for the City to forgo some of the revenue in order to modernize the airport before we suddenly learn that all of our final destination passenger travel goes through outlying airports, making travel to LA less desirable and feasible. The City is not a for-profit entity, per se - the profit that the City seeks is an improved and stable quality of life for residents through courting businesses and other revenue streams. The LA World Airports balance sheet may take a hit if parking revenues drop (let’s be honest here, they probably won’t - even if some of the people who drive decide to take transit instead, comprehensive LAX rehabilitation will mean that they will be replaced by people from elsewhere in LA who would’ve driven to Burbank, Ontario, or John Wayne), but the LA area will be aided through encouraging passenger air traffic to route through LAX again.
This could also be a carrot with which to get the Westchester residents to shut up - improving transit could reduce the amount of traffic spillover onto Westchester community streets, and in turn give LA greater leeway to reconfigure and modernize the North airfield before we have a tragic disaster.
But this is all a part of a comprehensive rehabilitation, the transit element is just one part. Everyone here seems to be thinking small, when the LAX issue is really a massive issue.
That’s the point…City of LA also owns Palmdale and Ontario as well, so more flights might be stuck out there rather than at LAX.
Burbank and John Wayne have their own local NIMBY problems, so don’t expect too much expansion at either of those airports….
Isn’t $10/day parking a POV charge?
$10/day parking has a negligible if any effect on congestion in the airport, and the same would be true if you doubled the parking charge. An extremely large amount of the traffic through LAX is people/companies picking up/dropping off at LAX. Unless you somehow charge for just entering the airport loop, congestion wouldn’t be significantly effected.
Red Line to Burbank Airport, Gold Line/Metrolink to Ontario, Blue Line can spur to Long Beach, Orange County could do something for John Wayne. It just seems like such a no brainer.
I’m watching Seattle try to get light-rail to Sea-Tac and DC try to connect Dulles. For decades before the Air Train, we took shuttle buses from JFK to the A Train.
Hooking the transit system into the airport doesn’t seem to be an isolated or L.A.X. specific issue. I’m not sure why.
Maybe the MTA read this topic?
Metro Red/Purple Line
On Tuesday through Thursday, November 27-29, system and facilities maintenance is scheduled between Union Station and Westlake/MacArthur from 9:00pm until close of service.
Purple Line trains will run between Wilshire/Western and Wilshire/Vermont only. All passengers traveling to or from Wilshire/Western or Wilshire/Normandie need to transfer at Wilshire/Vermont for trains to North Hollywood (lower level), Union Station (upper level) and to Wilshire/Western (upper level). Purple Line shuttle trains will leave Wilshire/Western according to regular schedule.
Red Line trains to Union Station will leave North Hollywood 4 minutes later than regular schedule beginning at 8:38pm and continuing through 11:38pm, then 12:02am, 12:14am, 12:34am and 12:54am.
Red Line trains to North Hollywood will leave Union Station 4 minutes earlier than regular schedule beginning at 8:53pm and continuing through 11:53pm, then 12:17am. Last train connecting to the Wilshire/Western Purple Line shuttle leaves Union Station at 11:53pm.
On Friday, November 30, track maintenance is scheduled at Westlake/MacArthur Station from 9:00pm until close of service.
Purple Line trains to Wilshire/Western will run 2 minutes earlier than regular schedule, beginning at 9:05pm and continuing through 11:25pm. Purple Line trains to Union Station will run according to regular schedule. Red Line trains to Union Station and North Hollywood will run according to regular schedule.
Metro apologizes for any inconvenience.
^Oops. Oh well…
I talked with the director of Norwalk’s transit system last week (we were at a conference in Anaheim) and he says “we’re still willing to consider it if it’s underground”.
That pretty much answers your question, I think.
Pretty much the case, yes.
Incidentally, Rob, “LAMTA” (the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority) ceased to exist November 5, 1964.
If, as I am certain, you mean the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, then “LACMTA” is the correct acronym. Or you could call them “Metro” as they prefer.
It’s distracting to read your posts attributing things to an agency that hasn’t existed for over 40 years …
>Red Line to Burbank Airport, Gold >Line/Metrolink to Ontario, Blue Line >can spur to Long Beach, Orange County >could do something for John Wayne. It >just seems like such a no brainer.
Right now it’s more like a “no-money-er”, so it’s not going to happen soon. Especially digging a new Red Line tunnel out to Burbank….
Gold Line to Ontario? So far I haven’t seen a particularly rational routing for anything east of Montclair. (Don’t get me started on rail/transit planning for San Bernardino County!)
Is there extant right of way for a spur to Long Beach Airport? It’s a relatively low-use airport anyway. Perhaps as part of a larger project (service to VA/CSULB, for example)
Orange County couldn’t even get a few miles of the Centerline built between Santa Ana and South Coast. Maybe in 20 years they’ll reconsider…
There’s a need for more flights from ONT, though. The Inland Empire has 4 million people and the airport serving it is woefully underused.
I’m not sure where else to put this because it probably needs its own threads, but it involves the Purple Line so I thought I’d start here.
There is a really interesting column from The Sniper in City Beat about funding the Purple Line extension:
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=6535&IssueNum=233
Get this exchange with The Sniper at Congresswoman Diane Watson regarding Congressman Henry “it was methane, not racism” Waxman:
After the meeting, L.A. Sniper had this exchange with Watson:
Sniper: What will it take to get Henry Waxman on board?
Watson: He is on board.
Sniper: No he’s not. What will it take to get Henry out there lobbying for money for the Subway to the Sea?
Watson: He stopped the line from going down Wilshire because of the explosion. We had that ban removed. He’s on board now.
Sniper: Lifting the ban is one thing. He’s still not pushing for funding. What will it take to get Henry on board?
Watson: I think under a new administration we’ll be looking at different things. You know, he’ll be able to do more.
Sniper: Can you go to Henry Waxman and tell him to support this project and help pay for it?
Watson: Oh, yeah. We’re going to work with him. You know, he’s a good guy. He’s onto something else right now.
Sniper: Of course, he’s a good guy and we’re happy to have him as a pain in the side to the Bush administration. But how are you going to get him focused on the subway?
Watson: Let us get through this particular session. The next session, I know it’s an election year. We can get his attention.
Henry, please give us a call. We need to talk. Or at least go for a ride on the Henry Waxman Line. ”
I love how The Sniper refers to the 720 as the “Henry Waxman Line” because we don’t have a Wilshire subway line.
I think Waxman is out of touch with his district. It’s not the same district since he last lived here year round. It’s denser, more vertical and much more friendly to public transit that when he left.
This was very distrubing from the Congresswoman:
I see, so he is too busy to deal with the most pressing transportation concern in his district that needs federal funding.
If Waxman thinks that going from hostile to neutral is some big deal or that merely rescinding the ban (that never should have been there to begin with and wouldn’t have been were it not for Waxman) is big legislative progress which means he can ignore the issue for another 20 years, he is mistaken.
We need a Congressman who doesn’t just “tolerate” public transit, but who actively promotes it and seeing securing Purple Line funding as his/her top transportation priority.
As it is, replacing Waxman with someone more pro-transit is very unlikely for someone so entrenched. Since Waxman is likely to be the Westside’s Congressman for the next 20 years, how can we get him out in front on this issue? Is there any way to get him to realize this isn’t the same city and district he knew in 1977?
Lifting the ban, while welcome, is not nearly enough, and doesn’t really make up for 20 years of delay. How can we get him to push for funding. With his power in Congress, he could get the ball moving.
I wonder if Feinstein and Boxer can help. They are both northern Californians originally. Do they understand this need? I hope so.
I, for one while grateful he’s no longer openly hostile, am in no mood to cut Waxman any slack on this.