K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jul 1, 2011 9:28:57 GMT -8
This was discussed earlier but I thought it deserved its own thread.
After the connector's in place - the Blue Line would potentially go from Long Beach all the way to Azusa - which would make it super-long. So it probably needs to split at some point. Question is how and where? Could you just take the Blue line to Sierra Madre Villa and have a separate Foothill Line go to Azusa and beyond...?
Also, what would happen to the Gold Line since it looks like Expo is going to take over the East LA branch?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 1, 2011 9:46:28 GMT -8
This was discussed earlier but I thought it deserved its own thread. After the connector's in place - the Blue Line would potentially go from Long Beach all the way to Azusa - which would make it super-long. So it probably needs to split at some point. Question is how and where? Could you just take the Blue line to Sierra Madre Villa and have a separate Foothill Line go to Azusa and beyond...? Also, what would happen to the Gold Line since it looks like Expo is going to take over the East LA branch? At the May Transit Coalition meeting, the guest speaker from MTA Rail Operations talked about only half the cars continuing on past Sierra Madre station. I could see something similar on the Eastside Gold Line just past Little Tokyo, but maybe since it isn't too far from there to the end of the Eastside Gold Line, they will just keep the same frequency and cars for simplicity as it might not be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 1, 2011 10:32:06 GMT -8
The last time we discussed this topic in detail (the thread may have been lost during the great server crash of 2011), the consensus was that the Long Beach-Downtown LA portion will likely see twice as many frequency as the northern portion due to existing imbalance in ridership that is unlikely to change.
So every other Blue line train will start/terminate in Downtown instead of Azusa... the real question is whether you terminate at Metro Center (like now), or at Union Station (or somewhere further north).
And if you throw Expo-Eastside line in the mix, it becomes more complicated question. I think terminating half of the Blue line train at Metro Center is the most simple solution from operational standpoint but not necessarily the best outcome from train riders' perspective.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 1, 2011 12:27:37 GMT -8
7th Street/Metro Center is not going to be a turn-around point. Just for purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define the Operational Regional Connector (ORC), which is the track shared among the two combined light-rail lines once the Regional Connector project (RC) is completed. Notice that the ORC will stretch from Washington/Flower to 1st/Alameda, so it is only partly overlaps with the RC project. High volumes of trains are going to need to pass through the ORC, with only one track per direction. Coordinating traffic at the junctions is going to be Metro's biggest headache. So Metro is going to want to keep all trains moving through the ORC and not have to merge/terminate/turnback any trains within this stretch of track. Yes, there will be a pocket track under Flower Street north of 7th/Metro. But this will not be used for turnbacks: it will mostly used for traffic management, maintenance bypass, and other non-normal situations. (If anything, they may store a train or two there at night, in preparation for the morning.) There is definitely a mismatch between the Expo and Eastside branches, and the Long Beach and Azusa branches: I brought this up on several threads scattered across the forum. The turnbacks would have to be located on the Azusa and Eastside branches. The Eastside branch is not very long, so it probably would just terminate at Atlantic. (I honestly don't see the Eastside branch being extended any time soon.) As for the Azusa branch, there are several places trains could turn back: - Azusa (too far)
- Sierra Madre Villa (end of current line)
- Lake (just past Old Town)
- Division 21, just past Chinatown station.
I also mentioned the possibility of creating a new line heading northeast from Division 21, toward Glendale. The Azusa and Glendale Branches would then combine service at Chinatown and continue west to Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 1, 2011 15:01:01 GMT -8
So every other Blue line train will start/terminate in Downtown instead of Azusa... the real question is whether you terminate at Metro Center (like now), or at Union Station (or somewhere further north). Another question need to be asked is which branch (Expo or Blue Line) is the most dependent for a connection to Union Station? My guess is the Expo Line due to the jobs and activity centers in key spokes of the line at USC, Culver City and Santa Monica thus will be tied with the the Pasadena leg of the Gold Line and Blue and East LA lines are linked together. Operationally I could see a pattern where its Expo-SGV Gold Line and every other Blue Line train has a destination to Chinatown for operational turnback Gold: Santa Monica-Pasadena Blue: Long Beach-East LA Gold: Santa Monica-Azusa Blue: Long Beach-East LA or ChinatownAlso I believe by the time the DRC is operational there will be more demand from the Eastside to Downtown as those passengers no longer have to go backtrack to Union Station to make their transfer thus having more demand due to a faster direct to Downtown trip.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jul 3, 2011 11:13:26 GMT -8
This was discussed earlier but I thought it deserved its own thread. After the connector's in place - the Blue Line would potentially go from Long Beach all the way to Azusa - which would make it super-long. So it probably needs to split at some point. Or maybe not. Forgive me, but isn't the purpose of the RC to let us have longer rides without transfers? Give me a genuine Express run to/from Santa Monica and Pasadena, lift the artificial speed limits, and I might bother to leave the car at home.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 4, 2011 9:33:04 GMT -8
Or maybe not. Forgive me, but isn't the purpose of the RC to let us have longer rides without transfers? Give me a genuine Express run to/from Santa Monica and Pasadena, lift the artificial speed limits, and I might bother to leave the car at home. I don't expect that transit in Los Angeles will ever get you out of your car if that's the way you look at it.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jul 4, 2011 12:07:43 GMT -8
Didn't a majority of the taxpayers "look at it that way" when they voted for Measure R?
And I ask again, isn't the purpose of the billion-dollar RC to enable single-seat rides?
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 4, 2011 12:54:19 GMT -8
It will allow for single seat rides, however demand on the other side of the connector will likely determine if all the trains go through. As lines get longer it becomes harder to keep them on schedule. Operator changes may take place at 7th/Metro due to the length of the entire trip.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 4, 2011 12:58:50 GMT -8
Didn't a majority of the taxpayers "look at it that way" when they voted for Measure R? And I ask again, isn't the purpose of the billion-dollar RC to enable single-seat rides? Really, since we are probably only talking about turning back half the trains at Sierra Madre, the only people affected by this would be if you are going from say Watts and wanted to go all the way to Azuza. You would either have to transfer at Sierra Madre or wait for a train that goes all the way to Azuza, so a transfer isn't necessarily in the cards. It would be a waste of tax dollars to run mostly empty trains all the way to Azuza. The agency has an obligation to protect taxpayer money. Of course, some people seem confident that the Gold Line past Sierra Madre will have big demand because of the congestion on the 210 (I am not one of them), and if that is the case, then the MTA could adjust accordingly. As far as the SM-Pasadena direct train, that likely won't happen very often if at all because the Connector can handle only so many trains at once and running SM-East LA and SM-Pasadena and Long Beach-Pasadena and Long Beach-East LA trains all at once would create a bit of chaos in scheduling. Don't recall anything in Measure R that "promised" a direct SM-Pasadena train regardless of what people may have assumed. The connector will make the light rail system much more cohesive even if someone has to transfer once on a SM-Pasadena journey - which is roughly a very long 35 mile trek (which if Expo were done now without a connector would require 2 transfers now).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 4, 2011 14:58:06 GMT -8
Didn't a majority of the taxpayers "look at it that way" when they voted for Measure R? No. No.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 4, 2011 15:39:05 GMT -8
It's always possible to split the line at, say, Sierra Madre Villa and terminate all trains there, except that a terminating train from LA becomes a train to Azusa, and a train from Azusa becomes a train to LA, so the split is just an operational detail, and riders only see an extra minute or two waiting time and a change of driver. There's also the question of service levels. Given that the Gold Line has trains every 6 minutes during rush hours, a 12 minute service to Azusa seems reasonable, and it might make sense to keep this level of service throughout the day and on weekends simply for scheduling convenience. Even though something like a 15 or even 20 minute off peak headway might be more appropriate for a long suburban line, it might not be possible to accommodate this with the service level on on the Pasadena section of the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 4, 2011 21:32:10 GMT -8
Didn't a majority of the taxpayers "look at it that way" when they voted for Measure R? No. No. I don't know if I can agree with you here. It's hard to speak for the voters, but I think that a one-seat ride fit somewhere in the picture here. Flexibility and the fulfillment of the potential of all the Downtown lines also played a role. Options and the ability of the "eastern light rail system" and the "western light rail system" to connect to each other also played a role. No one really, REALLY knows how best the lines should be coordinated...but supply and demand will allow for the lines to have different numbers of north/south, west/north and east/west trains to be created. It's all about options.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 4, 2011 21:54:16 GMT -8
Measure R was about much more than people thinking that they would get "one seat rides" all over the county. Especially the rides described by elray. Maybe that's what some thought, but I think that the majority were more realistic and realized that they would have to transfer to get to many places.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 5, 2011 8:08:01 GMT -8
Transfers are just part of riding mass transit.
When I lived in NYC and London no one expected a "one seat" ride everywhere they wanted to go. What they sought were smooth and easy transfers from one line to another.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 5, 2011 9:08:23 GMT -8
People will accept transfers when frequencies are high enough, and when the train network reaches a critical mass of destinations. That's true of New York and London, and is becoming true to a lesser extent in Los Angeles. Once Expo is complete, people will be able to reach Santa Monica, DTLA, Pasadena, Long Beach, and Hollywood. Add in Wilshire, LAX, Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood and people won't be able to complain that you can't get to the main economic, transportation, and leisure centers of the LA basin. The next 30 years can then focus on making the central network more dense and interconnected leading to more reliable transfers and better connections to all of the urban core of LA.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 5, 2011 10:42:17 GMT -8
irect SM-Pasadena train regardless of what people may have assumed. The connector will make the light rail system much more cohesive even if someone has to transfer once on a SM-Pasadena journey - which is roughly a very long 35 mile trek (which if Expo were done now without a connector would require 2 transfers now). And the quality of those transfers is important too. Now you have to climb stairs at Metro/7th and take a 5 minute hike at Union Station. With the RC, you'll be able to hop off onto a center platform, wait as little as 2 minutes during rush hour, and hop on the connecting train arriving on the same track.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 5, 2011 12:50:11 GMT -8
No one really, REALLY knows how best the lines should be coordinated...but supply and demand will allow for the lines to have different numbers of north/south, west/north and east/west trains to be created. It's all about options. This sounds most right to me. The DC won't be done for quite a while from now. It's anybody's guess how the ridership will look at that time. Just look at the increasing Gold Line ridership for a good example. Like Ken says, the DC has the option/flexibility to run any number of different route configurations. For example, when the Crenshaw line starts running, the Expo Line should see a significant bump, that could alter how they run the DC. Maybe run some % of Eastbound Expo trains up to Pasadena. RT
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 5, 2011 13:31:30 GMT -8
Based on anecdotal evidence and my observation/knowledge about the regions and commute pattern (I lived in Montebello, went to Schurr High, but now live/work on the Westside), I think Eastside segment will see huge jump in ridership once it is combined into a single service with Expo line post RC. So I don't think there will be a need to "short line" the Expo-Eastside line at all.
As for the possibility of Pasadena-Santa Monica service, that remains an attractive option but really adds to the operational complexity. I'm not sure it warrants the extra headache... especially since there will be 4 transfer stations available for people to switch from Blue to Expo-Gold (Little Tokyo, Broadway, Disney Hall, Metro Center).
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 5, 2011 14:57:16 GMT -8
Based on anecdotal evidence and my observation/knowledge about the regions and commute pattern (I lived in Montebello, went to Schurr High, but now live/work on the Westside), I think Eastside segment will see huge jump in ridership once it is combined into a single service with Expo line post RC. So I don't think there will be a need to "short line" the Expo-Eastside line at all. As for the possibility of Pasadena-Santa Monica service, that remains an attractive option but really adds to the operational complexity. I'm not sure it warrants the extra headache... especially since there will be 4 transfer stations available for people to switch from Blue to Expo-Gold (Little Tokyo, Broadway, Disney Hall, Metro Center). And Pico Station too, if you want to work on your tan while transferring. Metro has been pretty clear that they want to run the simplest configuration when the RC opens to handle those those trains every 1.5 minutes through the connector. Maybe on the weekends, when the headways aren't as intense through the RC, they can run a Pas-SM direct line for the beach crowd
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 5, 2011 15:59:52 GMT -8
Sigh. If only we could afford a 4-track Regional Connector. With 4 tracks from Washington to Little Tokyo, and two center platforms at transfer stations, there could be timed cross-platform transfers. This would be just as fast as having all 4 services; to get from Pasadena to Santa Monica you would just get off at Little Tokyo (or Pico) and walk 14 feet to the other side of the platform and sit down. The extra pair of tracks would also double capacity, allowing both lines to run every 2 minutes at rush hour, instead of every 4 minutes at best as currently planned, and it would greatly increase reliability.
Now where did I put that extra $2 billion...
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 11, 2011 7:57:36 GMT -8
A four track connector wouldn't be very useful, because there are considerable constraints on line capacity outside the connector. For one thing, the surface sections of the Blue and Expo lines can't run more than 20 tph due to traffic lights. For another, given the existing plans for the connector, the shared at-grade section between the portal and Flower/Washington can't run more than 20 tph for the whole connector. So, unless there are more grade separations on the Blue and Expo Lines, and the tunnel is extended past the junction at Flower/Washington, the capacity of a four track would largely be wasted. Finally, a same-platform transfer is even more convenient than a cross-platform transfer, when headways are close. You just walk 2 feet away from the train, then walk 2 feet back to the next train, whcih will be coming in 2 minutes. And reliability is better, because a train can be a minute late without having to hold other trains for the connection.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 11, 2011 10:39:04 GMT -8
A four track connector wouldn't be very useful, because there are considerable constraints on line capacity outside the connector. For one thing, the surface sections of the Blue and Expo lines can't run more than 20 tph due to traffic lights. For another, given the existing plans for the connector, the shared at-grade section between the portal and Flower/Washington can't run more than 20 tph for the whole connector. So, unless there are more grade separations on the Blue and Expo Lines, and the tunnel is extended past the junction at Flower/Washington, the capacity of a four track would largely be wasted. Finally, a same-platform transfer is even more convenient than a cross-platform transfer, when headways are close. You just walk 2 feet away from the train, then walk 2 feet back to the next train, whcih will be coming in 2 minutes. And reliability is better, because a train can be a minute late without having to hold other trains for the connection. Great point about capacity throughout the system making 4-tracking unnecessary. Hadn't thought of that!
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 11, 2011 22:44:41 GMT -8
There's also an argument to be made that if there is to be a second pair of tracks through Downtown, it should be used to serve a different part of it. If, as is likely, there is an imbalance of demand between the north and south sides of the connector, it might make sense to build a third branch from 1st/Alameda, going south and connecting back to the Blue Line. Otherwise, it might make sense to build a branch off the Blue Line that takes a more easterly route through Downtown and then heads northwest via Sunset. You can call this whole thing the Regional Connector Phase II, or Second Downtown Connector, or whatever, but it's not likely to be needed until other bottlenecks in the light rail system are eliminated first.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 12, 2011 15:24:04 GMT -8
For what it's worth, the planned Regional Connector is quite good. It links together some of the better parts of downtown and areas that the Red Line misses. Even if it lacks a 4th/ 5th Street station, it will still attract a lot of people trying to get to Bunker Hill or Little Tokyo as well as people trying to get through downtown to other areas. However, I do think that eventually the Blue, Expo and Gold Lines will have to be separated out. I'm not sure what route the "second connector" will take, but I think I prefer the idea of a new route rather than four-tracking the Regional. The "second" connector may have to grab whatever parts of downtown are left over after the Red Line and the Regional take the best spots But, I think there's potential for a new line east of the Red Line... a Broadway subway? or heading down into the Fashion/ Jewelry/ Toy districts... [ I don't know, I don't really visit that area, for me the Pico/ Convention Center to Little Tokyo route is perfect ;D ] of course, none of this is until after the Regional gets crowded.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 12, 2011 21:03:26 GMT -8
For what it's worth, the planned Regional Connector is quite good. It links together some of the better parts of downtown and areas that the Red Line misses. Even if it lacks a 4th/ 5th Street station, it will still attract a lot of people trying to get to Bunker Hill or Little Tokyo as well as people trying to get through downtown to other areas. However, I do think that eventually the Blue, Expo and Gold Lines will have to be separated out. I'm not sure what route the "second connector" will take, but I think I prefer the idea of a new route rather than four-tracking the Regional. The "second" connector may have to grab whatever parts of downtown are left over after the Red Line and the Regional take the best spots But, I think there's potential for a new line east of the Red Line... a Broadway subway? or heading down into the Fashion/ Jewelry/ Toy districts... [ I don't know, I don't really visit that area, for me the Pico/ Convention Center to Little Tokyo route is perfect ;D ] of course, none of this is until after the Regional gets crowded. I'm interested to see how the RC stop at Broadway is going to interact with the Streetcar. Some interesting opportunities to do multi-modal transit really well there. As for a second connector, I'd hope they aim for a line that provides access to the arts district and the Old Bank District, say, around 5th and Spring/Main. Perhaps two of the four lines could be routed from Metro/7th eastwards under 6th street before turning up Spring or Main.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 13, 2011 11:52:15 GMT -8
I think the conventional wisdom around these parts is the 2nd connector should be aligned on San Pedro or Alameda, which will allow half of the future Blue line trains to go to Union Station directly instead of the long detour on Washington Blvd and the Financial District.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 13, 2011 15:19:43 GMT -8
How well the Regional Connector links together with the Broadway Streetcar really depends on how many portals they put at 2nd and Broadway and where they put the portals.
I'll be honest, I've been paying a lot of attention to Little Tokyo and some attention to Bunker Hill and the apparently dead Fifth Street station, and not very much attention at all to the "other" station on Second.
Ignoring the Broadway Streetcar for a moment, it seems painfully obvious that 2nd/ Spring makes more sense than 2nd/Broadway. You'd have the new LAPD on one side and the L.A. Times on the other. 2nd/ Broadway still has that big nothing.
If that big hole actually were to become something, you would have a huge potential to tie THAT in with the Regional Connector, with the subway in the basement of whatever goes there.
For now, if I'm Transit God, I see a big parking lot between Broadway and Spring that can be eminent domained out, and you put portals on BOTH Broadway and Spring.
Then you just have to make sure that the streetcar is on the right side of the street, and streetcars don't need big, fancy Blue Line-sized station platforms... and you have your multimodal link.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 13, 2011 20:43:51 GMT -8
I think the conventional wisdom around these parts is the 2nd connector should be aligned on San Pedro or Alameda, which will allow half of the future Blue line trains to go to Union Station directly instead of the long detour on Washington Blvd and the Financial District. I guess that is the straight shot, although there may be some issues with Alameda (it's a designated trucking route).
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 14, 2011 18:21:07 GMT -8
I think it would be a good idea to extend the existing short line that the Blue Line runs from 7th Street/Metro Center in Los Angeles to Willow Station in North Long Beach. Extend that short line that every other Blue Line train runs to Sierra Madre Villa Station in East Pasadena.
This results in peak hours to: Foothills to Long Beach Transit Mall (every 12 mins) East Pasadena to North Long Beach (every 12 mins)
The Blue Line (6 minutes) "trunk" and (12 minutes) extremity of service is preserved the same as today, while extended to East Pasadena.
As for the combined Expo Line plus the Eastside Extension, every train ought to run the complete route from Santa Monica to East Los Angeles. This new combined 20 mile long "Gold" line should be no problem to operate compared to the 54 mile "Blue" line.
|
|