|
Post by bzcat on Jan 18, 2019 10:54:53 GMT -8
B1 is total nonsense. The segment with the lowest ridership (south bay) has the highest service frequency? What the f?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 18, 2019 19:53:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jan 19, 2019 0:53:12 GMT -8
How would this work off-peak? Cancel one of the 105 branches and halve frequency on the north-south line, or are they stupid enough to suggest running branches at 24-minute headways?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 19, 2019 21:30:33 GMT -8
How would this work off-peak? Cancel one of the 105 branches and halve frequency on the north-south line, or are they stupid enough to suggest running branches at 24-minute headways? The way I interpret it is that at peak, everywhere effectively gets 6-minute headways except the Redondo to LAX portion effectively gets 4-minute headways. If the off-peak headways for the 12-minute headways expand to 24-minute headways and Crenshaw to Redondo get 12-minute headways, everywhere effectively gets 12-minute headways except the Redondo to LAX portion effectively gets 8-minute headways.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 22, 2019 7:58:29 GMT -8
So they just wanted a flying junction. I am consistently amazed by Metro's inconsistency and myopia. It almost seems to transcend bureaucratic inefficiency and be done on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Jan 22, 2019 13:58:48 GMT -8
So they just wanted a flying junction. I am consistently amazed by Metro's inconsistency and myopia. It almost seems to transcend bureaucratic inefficiency and be done on purpose. ... all so they can overserve stations #77, 81, 84, and 89 out of 93 in terms of daily ridership with more tph than the red/purple line trunk at peak
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 22, 2019 17:19:31 GMT -8
So they just wanted a flying junction. I am consistently amazed by Metro's inconsistency and myopia. It almost seems to transcend bureaucratic inefficiency and be done on purpose. ... all so they can overserve stations #77, 81, 84, and 89 out of 93 in terms of daily ridership with more tph than the red/purple line trunk at peak
Where did you happen to get those stats? I can' find them on metro's interactive ridership statistsics.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 22, 2019 17:56:00 GMT -8
... all so they can overserve stations #77, 81, 84, and 89 out of 93 in terms of daily ridership with more tph than the red/purple line trunk at peak Where did you happen to get those stats? I can' find them on metro's interactive ridership statistsics. I believe he got it from Scott Frazier’s twitter account, which got it from a public records request. I think it’s unfair to say it was myopic and inefficient to not put a flying junction. It’s really not necessary to give those stations more service than the rest of the Green or Crenshaw lines (and in fact they are demanding more service than the rest of the system).
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Jan 23, 2019 11:21:56 GMT -8
I believe he got it from Scott Frazier’s twitter account, which got it from a public records request. Correct, I should have credited Scott.
To re-frame the argument, I actually agree that this wye should have been designed as a fly-over with high-frequency service in mind on all branches, in addition to every other wye in the system. The baseline should be 6-minute minimum headways all day on all service patterns system-wide if Metro is really building the system we need for the future. It's just absurd to suddenly start caring about this on the lowest-ridership corner of the system, when apparently a flat wye is totally OK for the regional connector trunk in little tokyo (and likely Washington as well, even in the most optimistic grade separation scenarios presented so far).
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 23, 2019 13:29:45 GMT -8
Where did you happen to get those stats? I can' find them on metro's interactive ridership statistsics. I believe he got it from Scott Frazier’s twitter account, which got it from a public records request. I think it’s unfair to say it was myopic and inefficient to not put a flying junction. It’s really not necessary to give those stations more service than the rest of the Green or Crenshaw lines (and in fact they are demanding more service than the rest of the system). I meant that it was myopic of Metro to realize they wanted a flying junction while in the process of building a flat junction instead. The public will turn against the agency if it keeps treating Measure M money like it grows on trees and allowing itself to make careless oversights that become costly monuments to inefficiency. The ghost cities of China come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jan 23, 2019 15:02:09 GMT -8
Metro didn't realize they want a flying junction, an elected member of the LA County Board of Supervisors realized she did after it became clear that Metro wasn't going to give her district the preferential treatment she assumed they would. There is no need for a flying junction at the frequencies Metro's study suggested running, it only becomes a problem if you rearrange the service pattern to over serve the South Bay branch the way the political reps of that area want.
Even after the Green Line extension to (which is already due to be poorly laid out due to local politics), the South Bay branch will have sufficient service at the frequencies Metro's study suggested. This is just politics being politics, and the South Bay's blend of rich NIMBY's in splinter cities at odds with the poor interior on the other side of the 405 is a constant battle.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 23, 2019 19:27:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 23, 2019 22:23:22 GMT -8
I believe he got it from Scott Frazier’s twitter account, which got it from a public records request. I think it’s unfair to say it was myopic and inefficient to not put a flying junction. It’s really not necessary to give those stations more service than the rest of the Green or Crenshaw lines (and in fact they are demanding more service than the rest of the system). I meant that it was myopic of Metro to realize they wanted a flying junction while in the process of building a flat junction instead. The public will turn against the agency if it keeps treating Measure M money like it grows on trees and allowing itself to make careless oversights that become costly monuments to inefficiency. The ghost cities of China come to mind. To be clear, right now Metro is not saying it wants a flying junction. The South Bay Council of Governments (they effectively control 1 board seat) and a county supervisor is saying theg want it (she controls another seat). Just because some members of the board want something doesn’t always mean they will get it or that the full board will want it, though.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jan 24, 2019 7:31:53 GMT -8
How many trains an hour was Pacific Electric able to move through the wye on San Pedro Street where the trains left the 6th and Main Station? I'm guessing it could handle a train a minute with no difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 25, 2019 9:08:12 GMT -8
Where did you happen to get those stats? I can' find them on metro's interactive ridership statistsics. I believe he got it from Scott Frazier’s twitter account, which got it from a public records request. I think it’s unfair to say it was myopic and inefficient to not put a flying junction. It’s really not necessary to give those stations more service than the rest of the Green or Crenshaw lines (and in fact they are demanding more service than the rest of the system). It could have been a records request but I think they make it available just hard to find. I use the link below but 2018;isn't posted yet. libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Ridership/
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 26, 2019 15:42:23 GMT -8
Thanks. That's typical. I also like how the "new" ridership statistics portal (been around for a couple years) is less comprehensive than the old one.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 30, 2019 12:13:56 GMT -8
The December 2018 project status report is out for the Crenshaw/LAX Line. Project is 90.4% complete as of December 31, 2018 (design and construction), which is an increase in 0.7% progress versus 89.7% progress at the end of November. The contractor is still continuing to fall behind even the updated delayed schedule. The 90.4% figure includes the maintenance yards if you look at just the main line and stations, that portion of the project is only 84.6% complete. media.metro.net/projects_studies/pm/images/report_pmo_crenshawlax_2018-12.pdf
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 8, 2019 9:48:46 GMT -8
BTW numble, in the Blue Line thread you posted the minutes from the Gateway Cities Service Council meeting, and they discussed the Green/Crenshaw Lines. So first of all, Mr. Shidler (on the Service Council) is pointing out the short-sightedness of "value-engineering" away power substations on the Crenshaw Line project. This may very well lead to major problems if they decide to run 3-car trains.
But secondly, he claims that all of the Green Line stations (except the four on the south/west end of the line) have 3-car platforms. On this forum, several people have claimed that Aviation/LAX can only accommodate 2-car trains, but that does not seem to be the case. To verify this, I took snapshots from Google Maps (in satellite mode) of Aviation/LAX and Crenshaw stations (at the same zoom). They appear to have the same length platforms.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 8, 2019 11:31:03 GMT -8
BTW numble, in the Blue Line thread you posted the minutes from the Gateway Cities Service Council meeting, and they discussed the Green/Crenshaw Lines. So first of all, Mr. Shidler (on the Service Council) is pointing out the short-sightedness of "value-engineering" away power substations on the Crenshaw Line project. This may very well lead to major problems if they decide to run 3-car trains. But secondly, he claims that all of the Green Line stations ( except the four on the south/west end of the line) have 3-car platforms. On this forum, several people have claimed that Aviation/LAX can only accommodate 2-car trains, but that does not seem to be the case. To verify this, I took snapshots from Google Maps (in satellite mode) of Aviation/LAX and Crenshaw stations (at the same zoom). They appear to have the same length platforms. you can right click google maps to measure a distance. it's quite accurate.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 8, 2019 12:24:54 GMT -8
BTW numble, in the Blue Line thread you posted the minutes from the Gateway Cities Service Council meeting, and they discussed the Green/Crenshaw Lines. So first of all, Mr. Shidler (on the Service Council) is pointing out the short-sightedness of "value-engineering" away power substations on the Crenshaw Line project. This may very well lead to major problems if they decide to run 3-car trains. But secondly, he claims that all of the Green Line stations ( except the four on the south/west end of the line) have 3-car platforms. On this forum, several people have claimed that Aviation/LAX can only accommodate 2-car trains, but that does not seem to be the case. To verify this, I took snapshots from Google Maps (in satellite mode) of Aviation/LAX and Crenshaw stations (at the same zoom). They appear to have the same length platforms. I ride the green line on my daily commute. Aviation/LAX can absolutely only platform two cars. Metro was either being dishonest when they stated that they can run 3- car trains through that station or incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse, but I believe the former. In a reply on The Soure I pointed out the fact that Aviation can only platform two cars and Steve Hyman confirmed it but offered no explanation as to why metro insisted that they could run three car trains. The only way would be to have some doors not open or have an entire car not open.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 11, 2019 13:22:59 GMT -8
I ride the green line on my daily commute. Aviation/LAX can absolutely only platform two cars. Metro was either being dishonest when they stated that they can run 3- car trains through that station or incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse, but I believe the former. In a reply on The Soure I pointed out the fact that Aviation can only platform two cars and Steve Hyman confirmed it but offered no explanation as to why metro insisted that they could run three car trains. The only way would be to have some doors not open or have an entire car not open. As an "occasional" Green Line rider, I will take your word for it. I have heard both sides, and it's disconcerting that Metro might be peddling an untruth. Maybe it's true that they plan to leave one door closed on either end of the train, allowing them to use the short platform for the longer train. Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 11, 2019 15:05:29 GMT -8
It's not unheard of for transit agency to do that. I've experienced a couple of time but it is always a bit jarring when you see the front of the train going past the platform of the station.
Last year I was on the London DLR and riding in the first car. I noticed the automated train run past and stopped beyond the platform at Cutty Sark station and I was a bit confused. Then I saw only the rear door of the first car opened and it dawned on me that this particular underground station could not be extended to accommodate longer trains so they just leave one door closed at the front and back. What was weird was that there was no announcements to avoid the first and last set of doors.
Another time in Tokyo, we pulled into a small surface station and the last 2 cars were clearly beyond the platform. They made lots of announcements in several different languages leading up to the stop to tell people to move to the front of the train. Open gangway train made it pretty easy to do that. Also the train stopped for a very long (by Japanese standard) time at this station. I think it was about 45 seconds when normal dwell time in Tokyo is about 10 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 11, 2019 16:21:21 GMT -8
I ride the green line on my daily commute. Aviation/LAX can absolutely only platform two cars. Metro was either being dishonest when they stated that they can run 3- car trains through that station or incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse, but I believe the former. In a reply on The Soure I pointed out the fact that Aviation can only platform two cars and Steve Hyman confirmed it but offered no explanation as to why metro insisted that they could run three car trains. The only way would be to have some doors not open or have an entire car not open. As an "occasional" Green Line rider, I will take your word for it. I have heard both sides, and it's disconcerting that Metro might be peddling an untruth. Maybe it's true that they plan to leave one door closed on either end of the train, allowing them to use the short platform for the longer train. Who knows. It’s harder than that. To platform three cars they would have to leave the front two doors closed in the lead car and the rear two doors closed in the rear car. Or close all four doors in either the rear or rear car. I would think that either scenario presents ADA compliance implications as wheelchairs can’t just roll down the aisle to the next open door. And it’s pretty easy to see how many cars fit by searching images of the station. Here’s one image from the first page that comes up. goo.gl/images/Uf2SMt
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Feb 11, 2019 16:27:03 GMT -8
BTW numble, in the Blue Line thread you posted the minutes from the Gateway Cities Service Council meeting, and they discussed the Green/Crenshaw Lines. So first of all, Mr. Shidler (on the Service Council) is pointing out the short-sightedness of "value-engineering" away power substations on the Crenshaw Line project. This may very well lead to major problems if they decide to run 3-car trains. But secondly, he claims that all of the Green Line stations ( except the four on the south/west end of the line) have 3-car platforms. On this forum, several people have claimed that Aviation/LAX can only accommodate 2-car trains, but that does not seem to be the case. To verify this, I took snapshots from Google Maps (in satellite mode) of Aviation/LAX and Crenshaw stations (at the same zoom). They appear to have the same length platforms. Technically it is 4 stations, they just forgot to mention that it is not the last four but two stations and two stations with one station sandwiched in the middle of the four that is long enough (El Segundo).
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 11, 2019 21:30:41 GMT -8
As an "occasional" Green Line rider, I will take your word for it. I have heard both sides, and it's disconcerting that Metro might be peddling an untruth. Maybe it's true that they plan to leave one door closed on either end of the train, allowing them to use the short platform for the longer train. Who knows. It’s harder than that. To platform three cars they would have to leave the front two doors closed in the lead car and the rear two doors closed in the rear car. Or close all four doors in either the rear or rear car. I would think that either scenario presents ADA compliance implications as wheelchairs can’t just roll down the aisle to the next open door. And it’s pretty easy to see how many cars fit by searching images of the station. Here’s one image from the first page that comes up. goo.gl/images/Uf2SMtThere was an idea posted as a comment on Metro’s The Source blog: make 2 stops per short station. thesource.metro.net/2019/02/04/cost-of-new-cars-ridership-capt-marvel-hwr-feb-4/#comment-49623
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Feb 13, 2019 6:48:20 GMT -8
Is there a way on the P2000s and P3010s to remotely lock out one car's doors? Otherwise, I don't know how that would work.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Feb 13, 2019 10:04:24 GMT -8
They open a single door at the yard, but that's in the car where the driver is, so maybe it's not plumbed through to the other cars.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Feb 14, 2019 15:26:39 GMT -8
Pretty sure three-car trains can neither make 2 stops at Aviation nor stop with half a car overhanging from either end because the junction begins immediately west of the platform. A block signal likely stands there as well, preventing trains from surpassing it while stopped at Aviation. That leaves the only options as leaving the last car closed or extending the platform to the east.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 6, 2019 21:22:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 25, 2019 16:16:20 GMT -8
|
|