Would the Crenshaw line preclude this? Could the Harbor Gateway be turned into light rail? Should it? What about extending Metrolink itself to the airport via the Harbor Sub?
I don't think it would eliminate it right off the bat, because this is such a large corridor there are pieces that could work as both Light Rail (extention of the Green Line) and Metrolink. The point is, that this is early in the study.
For example to meet that growing demand in the South Bay and even a few tourists from LAX, a Metrolink Line could use those tracks for a LAX-San Pedro service to serve the World Cruise Center and Ports O Call.
Actually, I think Jerard answered my question. I really hope it's wide enough to allow both heavy and light rail to increase options.
I guess that he answered my question as well. I must have missed it.
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #51 on Jan 17, 2009, 10:13am »
Once the political pieces are in place, I think we'll find room for both heavy rail and light rail using this vital ROW. I don't think anyone who's discovered and explored this ROW wants to see either option disappear because of the presence of the other option.
Hence Metro wanted DMU service to serve as a light rail on a route that Metrolink trains could also utilize. I suspect that grade separation and land acquisition will be the final option to allow for both LRT and Metrolink trains, if not for the entire route then at least between LAX and Crenshaw Blvd.
MTA schedules meetings on South Bay transit corridor
From news services Posted: 04/06/2009 05:42:55 PM PDT Transit-ZZPT-ZZTO
Eds: Rick Jager, Metro spokesman, can be reached at (213) 922-2707.
LOS ANGELES - The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will hold five community meetings over the next four weeks to gather public input about a planned public transit service through southwest Los Angeles County.
Metro officials are evaluating the possibility of expanding the county's transit network along a 26-mile-long freight rail corridor that the agency purchased in the early 1990s.
The corridor stretches from Vernon and Huntington Park west through South Los Angeles to Inglewood, then south through El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Lawndale, Torrance and Carson.
Transit through the corridor could connect downtown Los Angeles with Los Angeles International Airport and Long Beach via a C-shaped curve through the county, according to a Metro map of the proposal.
Metro will gather public input on various transit options for the corridor, including a Bus Rapid Transit system, a light rail line and dedicated bus lanes.
Public meetings to gather suggestions and comments about the proposal will be held at the following times and locations:
-- April 21 at 6 p.m. at the Boys and Girls Club of the Los Angeles Harbor in San Pedro, 100 W. Fifth St.;
-- April 22 at 6 p.m. at the Redondo Beach Main Library, 303 Pacific Coast Highway;
-- April 27 at 6 p.m. at Inglewood City Hall, 1 Manchester Blvd., in the community room;
-- April 30 at 11:30 a.m. at the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles, 700 N. Alameda St., Room 2145;
-- and May 2 at 10 a.m. at Augustus Hawkins Nature Park in Los Angeles, 5790 Compton Ave.
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #55 on Apr 8, 2009, 8:45pm »
How many passengers would be carried between the airport (LAX) and the cruise terminal? I don't think this service would be a significant contribution to passenger loadings. One thing is for certain, the Harbor Sub track will have to be completely rebuilt; my Altamont timetable shows the existing track limited to 15 to 20 mph.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 779 Location: Carson
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #56 on Apr 22, 2009, 11:46am »
I went to the meeting last night in San Pedro. Most of those in attendance supported the line. There was only one comment about crossings and the impact on traffic.
Modes BRT - Has been eliminated as an option for further study. The main reasons were interference with the few freight lines (Metro is required to preserve freight train access to the Harbor Subdivision) and that they could have close to the same speeds/ridership using Rapid buses.
Regional only - Metrolink type service using heavy EMU or DMU
Local - Light rail using LRV's or light DMU's
Express - Non-stop service from Union Station to LAX
Transportation Management - Do nothing on the ROW. Reroute buses, etc.
Notes Light rail - The northern terminus won't end in Vernon where the ROW ends now. They'll connect it to Union Station. The most likely route would be be on or parallel to Alameda from Slauson. There was no talk of the southern terminus being the green line or LAX. The two alternatives are to split from the ROW in Wilmington and go down either the 110 or Gaffey into San Pedro and/or to continue on the ROW to Wilmington Ave and then extend the line to connect with the blue line using either Sepulveda (connect at Willow), PCH (connect at PCH) or Alameda Corridor (connect on downtown Long Beach). I was the only one in the room that expressed a preference for the blue line connection. lol
They mentioned connections to LAX using a people mover. Also connections and sharing tracks with the Green line extension and Crenshaw. They mentioned Crenshaw quite a bit, actually.
Stations would be typically 1 mile apart. They listed potential stops along the entire route and mentioned that some stations would have lots of parking, while others might not. It depends on local factors and what makes sense. I'm pretty sure that they said or implied that stations would be high platform. They didn't directly mention what they would do about freight trains needing to pass, but outside they mentioned both gauntlet tracks and retractable platforms (like Sprinter).
The vehicles would be either like our current LRV's or could be DMU's diesel like Sprinter. They said that if they went with light DMU's that wouldn't preclude them from sharing tracks with our current LRV's. They would just run under the wires.
Regional - EMU's or DMU's. Would also definitely go to Union Station, but instead of following Alameda it would follow the LA River. The southern terminus could be LAX, San Pedro, or Long Beach. They mentioned that this option would require more grade separation (there are over 100 grade crossings just on the ROW). Light rail would require fewer grade separations.
Regional Express - Union Station to LAX. Not sure why this is even on the table. They mentioned that it would most likely need to be grade separated most, if not all, of the distance. I doubt that the residents of South LA and Inglewood would support a train that they can't ride. Unless they're expecting some HSR money or something I don't know why this is even out there.
« Last Edit: Apr 22, 2009, 11:48am by bluelineshawn »
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #57 on Apr 22, 2009, 5:09pm »
That is a great summary, bluelineshawn! Thank you.
I intend to go to the meeting tonight at Redondo Beach before I zoom up north to another meeting (thanks to your summary, I'll probably just chat a bit and leave comments before taking off) I agree that this should go all the way from Union Station to the Blue Line.
I'm extremely happy to learn that they are in touch with the Crenshaw folks, and perhaps they can triple track this corridor in order to ensure Metrolink and LRT fleets. I don't know why they would pursue DMU/EMU if they could use the same LRV fleets they currently use, but Metrolink compatibility must also be taken into consideration.
I think that a Regional Express model could be utilized (perhaps not nonstop, but stopping once-twice between Union Station and LAX), provided that there's also plenty of local service.
I think it's ridiculous that we have to choose between long distance/few stops and local service. They're not mutually exclusive, and never have been. We don't choose between freeways and surface streets--we have both--and the same should be presumed for rail.
Methinks we should be open to triple tracking (quadruple?) and lots of grade separation, perhaps in stages, as more than one mode of passenger rail is utilized for this ROW. After the Alameda Corridor, the freight trains are pretty much a nonissue, to my understanding.
The first step: start buying up a WIDE ROW to make sure we don't pigeon-hole ourselves into choosing any one mode at the exclusion of all the other modes of rail transportation.
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #58 on Apr 22, 2009, 6:51pm »
^ From Crenshaw to the Green Line, the ROW should be WIDE and GRADE-SEPARATED. This section will potentially be shared between this Harbor Sub Line, the Crenshaw Line and any northern Green Line extension.
I envision this line as a longer-distance line, with fewer stops, focused on transfer points. I'd probably suggest:
* Washington - Santa Fe * Slauson - Blue Line * Slauson - 110 Freeway * Inglewood * Century - LAX * Aviation.
Of course, if it is 3- or 4-tracked, there are more options. My listing could be the initial version (express train).
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 779 Location: Carson
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #59 on Apr 22, 2009, 7:04pm »
They didn't really exclude having both heavy and light rail and in fact they mentioned that as a possibility. They didn't exclude any combination of possibilities for the modes listed. However they did mention that parts of the ROW are very narrow and would require property purchases no matter which option was chosen. To choose more than one mode would require even more property purchases. I just don't know how likely that is. They mentioned having large parts of it elevated and again I don't see that as very likely.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 779 Location: Carson
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #60 on Apr 22, 2009, 7:08pm »
The express train that they are considering has no stops between Union Station and LAX. They were quite clear on that. Also it wouldn't connect to the airport circulator train. They were working with LAX to get two stops inside the airport for that option.
Regional only - Metrolink type service using heavy EMU or DMU
I don't know why this planning team is so in love with the idea of DMUs and EMUs. Metro recently released a report studying the use of DMUs on three existing Metrolink lines. This report concluded that it would be far more cost-effective to use existing Metrolink fleet because 1) new maintenance facilites would not required and 2) DMU trains would have to operate with a minimum of 12 axles (3 cars) to properly shunt tracks for proper signal operation, which is more cars than demand would require.
Regardless, we need this to be a Metrolink line as soon as possible. When Crenshaw comes on line, the mid-corridor communites along Slauson will be VERY well served by LRT already. Further, these existing LRT lines would take people where they would want to go (South Bay, LAX, Downtown, or north toward Expo/Wilshire). The Harbor Sub as an LRT line would provide much slower and lengthier route to Downtown than these services would.
The Harbor Sub corridor, however, CAN be incredibly useful if utilized as a fast link between the endpoints of the corridor (South Bay, LAX, and downtown), which are currently very poorly connected. I think the service should stop at Union Station, the Blue Line, the Harbor Transitway, Crenshaw, LAX, and whatever available South Bay stops. Only the essentials.
1-mile LRT/Harbor Transitway station radius map:
« Last Edit: Apr 22, 2009, 11:26pm by Justin Walker »
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 779 Location: Carson
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #63 on Apr 22, 2009, 9:07pm »
So far what makes the most sense to me is to extend the green line south and have everything between LAX and either San Pedro or Long Beach be light rail. The part from LAX to downtown would be commuter rail. They didn't really mention that as an option although they did say combining modes was a possibility.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 284 Location: Los Angeles
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #64 on May 25, 2009, 1:16am »
I was able to drive near a short portion of the Harbor Sub from Vermont to just before Crenshaw recently. It is amazing how wide a ROW this is and the benefit this would bring to these communities. However, the grade crossings are going to be tricky because of the angles and its location.
I also drove the other day up Crenshaw and my basic assessment is that this is going to be a difficult line to build to say the least. Crenshaw has a very suburban feel because it is so wide and car friendly (definately not pedestrian) and they have the parking lanes/areas on the side, which I assume will be gone as the light rail is built here. The area right around the Leimert split off is much more pedestrian friendly, but it is also narrower and I don't see how you are going to get light rail to fit in here easily (but it is a very short stretch of Crenshaw).
I just was in Minneapolis this week for work. They have a pretty new line that is quite impressive looking that runs from the Mall of America and airport into Downtown. It seems to be performing quite well as it has about a 25% higher ridership than the Gold Line, but is a couple of miles shorter. That is pretty impressive for a city far less dense than Los Angeles.
It would be nice if we could have a direct airport to Downtown rail connection as well, which intrigues me with the Harbor Sub. I'd like to see their cost estimates for it (I imagine much less than Crenshaw on a per mile basis due to the wide ROW, but we'll see).
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 779 Location: Carson
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #65 on Aug 23, 2009, 7:51pm »
Metro (I think) is building something on the Harbor Subdivision ROW just west of the blue line station at Slauson. It's almost right in the middle. I suppose that there could possibly be room to have any eventual trains travel on either side of the structure, but I was surprised to see it there considering the plans for that ROW. It's a concrete building. It could be a new substation, but if so it's much larger than the existing ones.
Basically, extension to South Bay Galleria is funded priority. Then, if they can get funding, they're looking to extend light rail from blue to Crenshaw and commuter rail from Union Station to near San Pedro
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #68 on Nov 9, 2009, 12:13am »
From talking to the staff at the meeting the way they see things probably going are:
1st phase: Extend south to Torrance RTC (with help of state/federal money -- Measure R has money to cover the extension to the Redondo Beach RTC at the South Bay Galleria)
2nd Phase: LRT from Blue Line Slauson Station to LAX/Crenshaw Line.
3rd Phase: Torrance RTC to Blue line Willow Station (although if pressure persists the extension could go to San Pedro)
4th Phase: Commuter Rail from Union Station to LAX (seen as only viable after the California High Speed Rail system goes to Union Station)
So basically if the southern extension ends up at Blue Line Willow Station we'll basically have our first loop route, well okay, semi-circle.
From talking to the staff at the meeting the way they see things probably going are:
1st phase: Extend south to Torrance RTC (with help of state/federal money -- Measure R has money to cover the extension to the Redondo Beach RTC at the South Bay Galleria)
2nd Phase: LRT from Blue Line Slauson Station to LAX/Crenshaw Line.
3rd Phase: Torrance RTC to Blue line Willow Station (although if pressure persists the extension could go to San Pedro)
4th Phase: Commuter Rail from Union Station to LAX (seen as only viable after the California High Speed Rail system goes to Union Station)
So basically if the southern extension ends up at Blue Line Willow Station we'll basically have our first loop route, well okay, semi-circle.
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #71 on Nov 9, 2009, 3:19am »
The staging (Redondo to Torrance first, then Crenshaw to Blue Line, then Torrance to Long Beach) seems reasonable, and light rail would be a good choice for this corridor, especially if the stations are designed to allow limited-stop ("Metrolink") EMU service. I am especially glad to hear that Metro is thinking about how the California High-Speed Rail system will change transit usage.
There are also substantial job and entertainment destinations downtown, in Belmont Shore and at CSU Long Beach. Now that Long Beach Transit (LBT) offers free passes to CSU students, the buses heading there are packed all day long. The Blue Line is also very successful, despite having a slow street-running alignment through most of the city.
A surface light rail line on PCH, Anaheim, 7th or Broadway would be heavily used. With no less than 14 east-west LBT bus lines, and a few Metro and OCTA buses, I believe there are are over 32 buses per hour going east and west, in a less than 2 mile wide corridor centered on 7th street. If they are a little over half full, that may be almost 1000 passengers per hour in each direction, and probably 30,000 per day (out of about 100,000 total system weekday riders in Long Beach), competitive with any of LA's current light rail lines on a per-mile basis. An east-west light rail line might be able to get 50,000 weekday trips in Long Beach alone.
Metro should plan for the "Harbor Subdivision" line to continue east across Long Beach, all the way to the major destination of the VA hospital and CSU Long Beach. If there is no way to get that line down south of Willow, then the trains could follow the Blue Line route south, before turning east. This 5 mile long route, with possibly 10,000 passengers per mile, might qualify for New Starts funding, when connected to the South Bay and the Blue Line, and will certainly create many new transit users in Long Beach and the rest of the county.
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #72 on Nov 9, 2009, 4:14am »
The Harbor Sub staff ruled out PCH because the impacts of adding light rail would be too great (not enough space, etc).
Interfacing with the Blue Line was ruled out because Metro thought it would impact operations too greatly. This is why the LRT option does not use the Blue Line tracks at Slauson and does not go further than Willow Station. Essentially the Blue Line would need a lot of work before any more interfacing were to happen.
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #73 on Nov 9, 2009, 4:19am »
Even though Long Beach has a large population, greater density and better ridership potential, I don't want to ignore San Pedro. The city of Los Angeles has been encouraging new development there, and the old neighborhoods near the harbor are beautify and good for walking. But the Harbor busway is a big disappointment, with poorly advertised and poorly coordinated service, most of which stops before reaching San Pedro. A Vermont HRT would be great, but is a long way off, and would still take about 55 minutes to Metro Center (Actually, 40 minutes to Expo/Vermont, then 15 minutes to get downtown)
I know it would be tough to take back lanes on the 110 even if they are currently for buses, but is there any chance of regional rail with EMU technology on the current alignment? With 2 miles between most stations and full grade separation, 110 mph operation should be possible (as with the main Metrolink lines after the CAHSR project builds us some grade separations and sound walls). It would be better to build new stations outside of the freeway median as well, since who wants to wait for a train in the middle of a dirty freeway? But adding glass sound walls would make a huge difference (we can try it out on the Green Line, to start).
The current transitway buses take 60 minutes to travel 23 miles from central San Pedro to Metro Center. I calculate* a full-speed train with 9 stations (currently existing) at PCH, Carson, Artesia, Rosecrans, Green Line, Manchester, Slauson, Expo and Metro Center (last leg via Expo/Blue line) would take 28 minutes end-to-end, averaging 85 miles per hour on the freeway and 20 mph on the street-running portion between stations. If the regional connector is complete, Union Station would be another 4 minutes away. That's about the same as driving time without traffic, and MUCH faster than even the carpool lanes at rush hour.
San Pedro itself would get two stations, at 6th street and 22nd street, either along the waterfront or on Gaffey. Trains could be run every 15 minutes with only 5 drivers and trains, since the round-trip would be about an hour. In comparison, Long Beach transit often needs 7 buses to maintain 15 minute headways on 8 mile long bus routes. Fast trains save money!
Later, the same stations could be used for the southern terminus of the Vermont line. I think a transfer to the Harbor Subdivision line would be better than a split route as suggested in the Metro document, due to better train frequencies.
(Technical: speed calculations based on 2 mph/second acceleration (about the same as 1 meter/second) to 110 mph in just under 1 minute and the same rate for braking, with 20 seconds stopped at each station. This means each station stop adds 20 second stopped plus 30 seconds delay while braking and 30 seconds delay for acceleration, for a total 80 second delay per station, 12 minutes total delay. Of course, this requires high-quality EMU trains, not light rail vehicles designed for 55 mph operation. The freeway portion is 20 miles and takes 11 minutes at 110 mph. The 2 mile street level / tunnel portion in Los Angeles takes about 5 minutes conservatively, with an average speed of 25 mph. So, 11 + 12 + 5 = 28 minutes. )
(If you want it to go faster, 125 mph operation, a third passing track at stations, a right-of-way thru downtown along 110 and 101, and only 3 intermediate stops (at Expo Line, Harbor Subd, and Green Line) will get you all the way to Union Station in about 17 minutes... or to San Francisco in just under 3 hours.)
Of course, if we give San Pedro such great, speedy access, we will have to send fast trains down the 105/Green Line to the South Bay and steal part of 405 and 710 to get to Long Beach... and then, what about the 10 to Culver City and Santa Monica? Anyone want to get from Union Station to the Pier in 17 minutes (with 6 stops)?
I should do a map of a complete regional rail system. Building stations and flyovers next to the freeways would be expensive, but light rail is not fast enough for every trip. The areas South and West of the 5 will be getting jealous for Metrolink and HSR, once Anaheim and Burbank have it.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 386 Location: Leimert Park, CA
Re: Harbor Sub Meetings Scheduled « Reply #74 on Nov 9, 2009, 5:23am »
In the South LA portion not too many people like the idea of Metrolink or any commuter rail service on the corridor, speeding through without providing the community access to transit service. This isn't Glendale or Orange County or some obscure right-of-way. It's a major east-west corridor in South LA.
The presentation shows significant transit ridership for the light rail alternative even with such a short segment. I'm not at all surprised, given the high transit dependency along the corridor. If anything I'm surprised the number is that low.
Light rail to the greatest extent grade separated to allow express tracks from Union Station to LAX is what should be planned for the portion between the Blue Line and Crenshaw. Unfortunately, there is no funding for any of it. Measure R only funds the sections from the Green Line terminus to the South Bay Galleria. And in that respect the project is a major disappointment. It should go down Hawthorne Blvd instead of through the middle of low-density housing.
It is my hope that part of the project is added to the Crenshaw Line, so they can be built simultaneously.
Another major issue is the shared tracks portion of the Crenshaw Line. We're walking into another Expo-Crenshaw and Blue-Expo mess, where early on people simply forgot to count the number of trains to determine the necessity of grade separation.
It's all the more reason to extend the grade separated sections on the Harbor Subdivision portion of the Crenshaw Line:
a) Extending the Hyde Park underpass to west of Redondo b) Beginning the La Cienega overpass 700 feet sooner to grade separate Oak c) Connecting the La Cienega overpass to the Manchester overpass to grade separate Hindry (1300 feet) d) Closing Cedar and building a driveway to the properties affected to Oak e) Grade separating Arbor Vitae
Based on their estimates (which I have been terribly critical of:
b) is around 3-5 million more c) is around 20 million more (primarily because it creates an aerial station) d) is cost neutral e) 13 million more
a) is the largest mystery (don't know what's under those tracks) but it's likely close to 70-100 million (requires an open cut station like Memorial Park).
"If that passion were directed at fighting for grade separation instead of fighting the people who want grade separation, it might actually get us closer to the type of rail transit system this region needs and deserves."
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u157/Blueline_express/IMG_0760-avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/nationaltc/Pics/KennethAlpern.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/images/maps/by_train2.gif)
![[image]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/3466393197_61d34c5495_o.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/PE_logo.png){kind=logo}
![[image]](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/harborsubdivision/harbor_subdivision_phased_implemet.jpg)
![[aim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)