|
Post by simonla on Jun 1, 2012 11:18:49 GMT -8
Let's not be dramatic--not every ride is 35 minutes. I've ridden it half a dozen times and it's been on time, or a few minutes over, every ride but one. There are clearly issues that need addressing, but my understanding is ridership is growing, not declining.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 1, 2012 15:42:21 GMT -8
Lets not forget that expo bus interface has not got into effect. So alot of the western stations are suffering from a lack of good bus connections mainly La Cienega. This along with the unopened Culver City Station and the speed issues on Flower St is what kept expo from having a more epic first month in terms ridership numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 1, 2012 16:41:16 GMT -8
I have so many problems with that I hardly know where to start, but how about we start with pedestrians. Are they supposed to have extended waits just like the people in cars? It's really nowhere near as simple as you portray. Why is it a problem that you have signal priority for a train, probably carrying between 60 - 100 people? Gates come down for a minute max. It's more important to let the 5 or 6 pedestrians or 10 cars go through? Don't you want to move the greater amount of people faster? What gates? We're discussing Flower aren't we? And I don't necessarily know that the trains carry more people than all of the cross traffic (which includes buses btw) and pedestrians. What does the Expo EIR say about signal priority and its effect on cross traffic and pedestrians?
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Jun 1, 2012 18:15:26 GMT -8
For what it's worth, I saw the Supervisor Schedules for the June shakeup and they will be running all trains again to Culver City station beginning June 17. Not sure if they will let anyone board, though.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 1, 2012 21:24:27 GMT -8
And I don't necessarily know that the trains carry more people than all of the cross traffic (which includes buses btw) and pedestrians. Wouldn't the trains carry a greater amount of people than they do now with signal preemption? The gains to Expo are going to be greater than the losses to buses and cars and pedestrians. Buses are already stopping every quarter mile. Pedestrians are already slow. Cars are already causing all the congestion in the first place. The low hanging fruit is Expo. And I don't think Expo Line headways are enough to cause too many headaches for all other transportation system users. I don't think we're going to reach Tokyo levels of train congestion in which gates are down for the vast majority of each hour. The proposed hierarchy of (from most important to least important) of pedestrians, cyclists, transit, cars is too rigid. Pedestrians are also often light rail riders, and it's important to transform the light rail riders into pedestrians much faster than the line does now. Same goes for Gold Line to East LA. I think we spent a billion dollars on this thing and are not willing to let it reach its maximum potential sometime in the future.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 2, 2012 9:47:17 GMT -8
And I don't necessarily know that the trains carry more people than all of the cross traffic (which includes buses btw) and pedestrians. Wouldn't the trains carry a greater amount of people than they do now with signal preemption? The gains to Expo are going to be greater than the losses to buses and cars and pedestrians. Buses are already stopping every quarter mile. Pedestrians are already slow. Cars are already causing all the congestion in the first place. The low hanging fruit is Expo. And I don't think Expo Line headways are enough to cause too many headaches for all other transportation system users. I don't think we're going to reach Tokyo levels of train congestion in which gates are down for the vast majority of each hour. The proposed hierarchy of (from most important to least important) of pedestrians, cyclists, transit, cars is too rigid. Pedestrians are also often light rail riders, and it's important to transform the light rail riders into pedestrians much faster than the line does now. Same goes for Gold Line to East LA. I think we spent a billion dollars on this thing and are not willing to let it reach its maximum potential sometime in the future. The capacity of the trains will not be increased with signal preemption, if that's what you're asking. Or if you're asking if more people will ultimately ride if there is signal preemption than without, that's hard to say. The blue line trains are currently packed along Flower and Expo will eventually be the same, with or without preemption. At first you advocate for the greater good, but when told that there are potentially more pedestrians/car/bus riders than train riders you inexplicably decide that the time spent by train riders is somehow more valuable than that of everyone else? Who wants to get off a train at Pico and then potentially wait 5 minutes to cross Flower so that trains never have to stop? This line is what was planned for, described in the EIR, and ultimately built. Most of us here predicted these problems years ago, which is why posts about grade separating the line on Flower are so prevalent. But they're still working out the bugs so let's not panic just yet by advocating drastic and unrealistic changes. Additionally, if signal preemption and its effect on traffic were studied in the approved EIR, then there is at least a starting point. If not, then completely changing what they said that they were going to do will generate bad will and no one near any future transit project that has concerns about a planned line's effect on road or pedestrian traffic will be able to trust Metro.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 2, 2012 11:54:50 GMT -8
I wasn't even thinking of Flower, I was thinking of Exposition.
If headways are too dense on Flower, then don't put any preemption there. But it's every 12 minutes on Expo right?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 2, 2012 12:23:05 GMT -8
I wasn't even thinking of Flower, I was thinking of Exposition. If headways are too dense on Flower, then don't put any preemption there. But it's every 12 minutes on Expo right? The 12 minute headways are temporary until Metro gets more cars and opens Phase II. The problem is on Flower not Exposition.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 2, 2012 14:06:07 GMT -8
I wasn't even thinking of Flower, I was thinking of Exposition. If headways are too dense on Flower, then don't put any preemption there. But it's every 12 minutes on Expo right? It's an interesting question which has more transit riders: The Expo Line (right now, and also in the future) or the combined bus ridership along Crenshaw, Vermont and Western at the point where they cross Exposition. I would not be shocked if the buses carry more at this moment, but would expect the Expo Line to overtake it definitely by the time Phase 2 opens -- if not much sooner.
|
|
|
Post by simonla on Jun 2, 2012 15:45:36 GMT -8
Metro's lucky that the Kings are doing so well, and that their fans faithfully take transit into DTLA. They undoubtedly will add a bump to ridership for this month and May.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jun 2, 2012 18:36:15 GMT -8
Wouldn't the trains carry a greater amount of people than they do now with signal preemption? The gains to Expo are going to be greater than the losses to buses and cars and pedestrians. Buses are already stopping every quarter mile. Pedestrians are already slow. Cars are already causing all the congestion in the first place. The low hanging fruit is Expo. And I don't think Expo Line headways are enough to cause too many headaches for all other transportation system users. I don't think we're going to reach Tokyo levels of train congestion in which gates are down for the vast majority of each hour. The proposed hierarchy of (from most important to least important) of pedestrians, cyclists, transit, cars is too rigid. Pedestrians are also often light rail riders, and it's important to transform the light rail riders into pedestrians much faster than the line does now. Same goes for Gold Line to East LA. I think we spent a billion dollars on this thing and are not willing to let it reach its maximum potential sometime in the future. The capacity of the trains will not be increased with signal preemption, if that's what you're asking. Or if you're asking if more people will ultimately ride if there is signal preemption than without, that's hard to say. The blue line trains are currently packed along Flower and Expo will eventually be the same, with or without preemption. At first you advocate for the greater good, but when told that there are potentially more pedestrians/car/bus riders than train riders you inexplicably decide that the time spent by train riders is somehow more valuable than that of everyone else? Who wants to get off a train at Pico and then potentially wait 5 minutes to cross Flower so that trains never have to stop? This line is what was planned for, described in the EIR, and ultimately built. Most of us here predicted these problems years ago, which is why posts about grade separating the line on Flower are so prevalent. But they're still working out the bugs so let's not panic just yet by advocating drastic and unrealistic changes. Additionally, if signal preemption and its effect on traffic were studied in the approved EIR, then there is at least a starting point. If not, then completely changing what they said that they were going to do will generate bad will and no one near any future transit project that has concerns about a planned line's effect on road or pedestrian traffic will be able to trust Metro. I had to come out of lurking to address this. First, 5 minute wait times are an extreme exaggeration even for the wait times of trains stopped at lights on flower now. Second, if the trains have preemption, that means they are on-time and on-schedule. This means headways can accurately be planned out. Even 3 minutes between blue and expo trains are enough for the pedestrian and car cycles to cross the tracks. Third, I don't know what pedestrians you are bent on protecting. Every time I have ridden Expo so far the trains have always had to wait for 5 people MAX to cross the tracks. If there was a Staple Center/Convention Center/USC event EVERYDAY with hordes of people crossing the tracks, that would be one thing, but hardly enough cross traffic to warrant a full train to wait, especially during rush hour when moving people in and out of DTLA efficiently is imperative. Heck I've seen Expo Trains having to sit at the light at Expo Park/USC for the pedestrian crossing with noone even crossing the tracks. Spokker's point about the buses was that since buses are stuck in traffic, stopping at lights anyway, it isn't going to make a difference to average bus rider if it has to wait for a train or two to cross the streets. However, LA is only the city that doesn't give priority to it's trains. A bus stopping for a light is normal. A train stopping at a light is not. When you are trying to gain ridership this is not the way to go. I don't care, a billion dollar train should NOT be waiting for a taco truck to turn the corner. No joke. It happened the last time I rode. The train had to wait a whole traffic cycle for a TACO TRUCK to turn left. With that said, not EVERY single light needs to have preemption, I'd just be happy with MOST lights with preemption. How it's set up now where a train can sit at a red lights as long as a local bus is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 2, 2012 22:30:05 GMT -8
Well here is a video of signal preemption with gates on the blue line taken by Damien Goodman back when the frequency was 5.5 min I believe. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlOHj4A7F7YGranted I agree that signal preemption on flower north of Washington looks like it would be a terrible idea. On the other it does not seem like it would be too much of an issue on the expo and blue line branches. And if signal preemption would help the trains stick to schedule so the junction does not get backed up then it is at least something worth looking into.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 3, 2012 0:49:31 GMT -8
Seriously, I'm really having trouble with the arguments against signal preemption. - Even if there are "only" 50 people on a train, there is nearly no way more pedestrians or drivers will be slightly inconvenienced by having to wait a few extra tens of seconds.
- Buses may or may not carry more people than a given train, but are also run by Metro. I'm sure something can be worked out to balance signal preemption for buses and trains.
- The gates go down for a minuscule amount of time, meaning each time a train goes by will result in an expected wait of half of that time.
- Signal preemption will enable trains to stick to schedule, avoiding bunching, and spreading out when these waits will occur, meaning people will have a much lower probability of having to wait for more than one train at a time if at all.
- There could occur some event where signal preemption results in worse wait time for more people, but the basis of a decision should be the expected waits. If the vast majority of signal events will be like the "taco truck turning left" example given above, signal preemption makes sense even if every once in a while the "bus full of people having to wait a bit longer" event happens.
- In the rare event that more than 50 pedestrians are crossing the street at the same time (seriously, do we have to discuss this, how often does this happen?) I expect there is a special event meaning the trains will also be packed and probably still need priority as a large number of those pedestrians would probably be going from the LA Live / Convention Center area to the train. Anyone who is trying to get to their car that's parked East of the Expo/Blue line tracks should probably have considered taking the train. In those cases, there would certainly be a special system of traffic management in place anyway and shouldn't affect the decision about whether to give signal preemption at other times.
- A car crossing Flower might be inconvenienced by having to wait for a train once along their whole trip, while a train carrying 100 people gets inconvenienced many times, resulting in a much higher delay as a fraction of trip time.
- One lane of light rail has a theoretical maximum capacity of about 8 lanes of freeway (source is wikipedia, so maybe we should take that with a bit of a grain of salt). If we want to maximize our investment, we should make sure that capacity can be used as effectively as possible, which isn't the case when up to 8 lanes of freeway traffic can be made to wait for a taco truck. We're really talking about something like an order of magnitude higher capacity than the cross streets (in addition to the traffic lanes on Flower). Why would you give the cross streets equal priority?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 3, 2012 6:32:14 GMT -8
You can add to this list the following: The light rail track is in a fixed place and will remain so for the next 50 years. The vehicles, and to a lesser extent the pedestrians, can make alternate travel plans if they believe that signal prioritization for the trains will slow them down.
Traffic is much like a liquid, it flows the path of least resistance. Cars will avoid crossing the trains path if there is another faster way of getting where they are going. A slightly longer trip that avoids crossing the tracks but is "guaranteed" to not be delayed will rapidly be "discovered" by those drivers in the area. The California and Del Mar choke points in Pasadena are easily completely avoided during rush hour by simply using Green or Union depending on which way you are going.
With all the discussion of the slowness, I haven't seen anyone yet post a detailed description of: 1) the length of the "delayed" track section, 2) the number of traffic lights that trains actually negotiate, 3) the red/green timing of those traffic lights, assuming they are fixed. Metro had to have studied this with simulations prior to making the decision to not give trains priority.
I could certainly see a situation where instead of a train having to randomly possibly wait at 7-8 different intersections, that it wait at the first one for some amount of time, then blast through the entire corridor unimpeded. Thats essentially signal synchronization favoring the trains.
The Southbound train traffic is obviously more predictable having just left 7th/Metro. The Northbound traffic is more likely to bunch up due to both Expo and Blue trains dealing with random delays coming in to where the tracks merge. All it would take is someone from Metro spending a few days at each end of the "corridor" in question noting the exact arrival time of each train. That will give them a very good idea of the "real world" conditions on the ground, to better enable them to decide how to deal with the "problem", should there be one.
You take the accumulated actual train arrival information, and you take what you know about cross traffic during various times of the day, then you figure out what you need to do with the traffic signals to allow for giving the trains the fastest possible transit time, while also causing the least delay to the drivers. Traffic management 101. Any competent system engineer could solve this in 1 week. Less time than we spend discussing it here on the board.
RT
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 4, 2012 10:50:43 GMT -8
With all the discussion of the slowness, I haven't seen anyone yet post a detailed description of: 1) the length of the "delayed" track section, 2) the number of traffic lights that trains actually negotiate, 3) the red/green timing of those traffic lights, assuming they are fixed. Metro had to have studied this with simulations prior to making the decision to not give trains priority. In my rides where there's been a delay all of the delayed rides are coming northbound to LA. My guess is that the bulk of the delays are a combination of trains arriving into 7th Street Metro Center not switching back quickly enough and a very sensitive Positive Train Control which effects how quickly these trains can turnback. There's some signal adjustments between 28th and 23rd Streets where if one is late after the 23rd Street station the operator will be stuck for at least one 90 second crossing cycle. I wonder if this would improve operations if LADOT went back to a 60 second crossing cycle?
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Jun 4, 2012 19:16:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 4, 2012 22:07:21 GMT -8
I reported the planned Culver City opening date as June 20 a long time ago, according to the head of the Metro testing and start-up. I believe June 20 is still the planned date. Prerevenue operation started on Sunday and they should announce the June 20 opening officially soon. They are probably waiting to see if they will receive the Farmdale TVMs by then so that they could announce both stations at the same time. Of course, there is always a possibility that the actual opening date might be off a few days or at the most about a week.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 5, 2012 12:35:51 GMT -8
I reported the planned Culver City opening date as June 20 a long time ago, according to the head of the Metro testing and start-up. I believe June 20 is still the planned date. Prerevenue operation started on Sunday and they should announce the June 20 opening officially soon. They are probably waiting to see if they will receive the Farmdale TVMs by then so that they could announce both stations at the same time. Of course, there is always a possibility that the actual opening date might be off a few days or at the most about a week. It's officially official now: la.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/get_on_board_expos_culver_city_farmdale_stations_open_june_20.php
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 30, 2012 9:25:20 GMT -8
This is probably a good thread to report the peculiarities occurring in the Expo Line operations.
The other day, the operator of an eastbound train almost ran a red light at Vermont in the path of left-turning cars. He was at full stop and forgot about the left-turn cycle and blew his horn and moved a few feet into the crossing before he realized what he was doing. Ironically, this is how most Expo train - car crashes happen -- a left-turning car collides with a train coming from behind -- although because the car driver doesn't obey the signal, not the train operator. This time, the train operator almost did the same mistake. People sometimes don't realize that trains (and cars in this case with the train operator doing the same mistake) can come from behind you in median-running light-rail configurations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 30, 2012 9:35:46 GMT -8
They were checking the fares on the Expo Line yesterday. Two female transit-security personnel walked through the entire train, which was fairly packed with almost every seat doubly occupied. They couldn't find a single person without proper fare. At the end, they were talking to each other and one of them said: "I think we should be on the Blue Line." Moral of the story: From my observations, the patrons on the Expo Line, unlike on some other Metro Rail lines, all have been rule-abiding citizens so far.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 30, 2012 9:52:21 GMT -8
They were checking the fares on the Expo Line yesterday. Two female transit-security personnel walked through the entire train, which was fairly packed with almost every seat doubly occupied. They couldn't find a single person without proper fare. At the end, they were talking to each other and one of them said: "I think we should be on the Blue Line." Moral of the story: From my observations, the patrons on the Expo Line, unlike on some other Metro Rail lines, all have been rule-abiding citizens so far. Glad to hear it, although having seen many fare checks on all of the lines, the amount of fare evasion has never seemed that high to me on any of them.
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Jun 30, 2012 17:10:07 GMT -8
They were checking the fares on the Expo Line yesterday. Two female transit-security personnel walked through the entire train, which was fairly packed with almost every seat doubly occupied. They couldn't find a single person without proper fare. At the end, they were talking to each other and one of them said: "I think we should be on the Blue Line." Moral of the story: From my observations, the patrons on the Expo Line, unlike on some other Metro Rail lines, all have been rule-abiding citizens so far. I'm usually not going that way, but I've been in a position to commute via Expo basically daily for the last two weeks. Over that period I've seen fare checkers twice, both times on the route West. The first time they boarded at La Brea and scanned my TAP card. The second time they boarded at La Cienega and just wanted to see TAP or other evidence of ticket (not even scanning). That time, there were two teenage girls next to me without proof of fare. The checkers then tag-teamed the girls, escorting them off at Culver City, where it looked like they got fined. Not to justify scofflaws, but it seemed like kind of harsh treatment for a couple of girls who looked like they were still figuring out Metro Rail. Hope they keep riding.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 30, 2012 19:06:11 GMT -8
As anyone else noticed that the P2000's are getting new LED destinations signs. I saw one on the lead car of the train on my way back from USC today. I wonder if the P865's will get them as well?
Sorry no pictures.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jul 1, 2012 9:02:51 GMT -8
As anyone else noticed that the P2000's are getting new LED destinations signs. I saw one on the lead car of the train on my way back from USC today. I wonder if the P865's will get them as well? Sorry no pictures. I saw it too at Pico Station heading back from Anime Expo/X-Games yesterday. The headsign is dot matrix orange LED (like most of our buses). The one I saw had DEL AMO on the headsign.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 1, 2012 12:40:48 GMT -8
I don't think the older cars will get the LED signs, because the roll signs have extremely high contrast. The only reason they'd get replace is if maintenance was getting too intensive since the roll signs have moving parts & the LED ones don't. It'd be nice if the subway cars got these though! The flip dot signs on the subway are awful at best.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 2, 2012 12:57:40 GMT -8
They were checking the fares on the Expo Line yesterday. Two female transit-security personnel walked through the entire train, which was fairly packed with almost every seat doubly occupied. They couldn't find a single person without proper fare. At the end, they were talking to each other and one of them said: "I think we should be on the Blue Line." Moral of the story: From my observations, the patrons on the Expo Line, unlike on some other Metro Rail lines, all have been rule-abiding citizens so far. I'm usually not going that way, but I've been in a position to commute via Expo basically daily for the last two weeks. Over that period I've seen fare checkers twice, both times on the route West. The first time they boarded at La Brea and scanned my TAP card. The second time they boarded at La Cienega and just wanted to see TAP or other evidence of ticket (not even scanning). That time, there were two teenage girls next to me without proof of fare. The checkers then tag-teamed the girls, escorting them off at Culver City, where it looked like they got fined. Not to justify scofflaws, but it seemed like kind of harsh treatment for a couple of girls who looked like they were still figuring out Metro Rail. Hope they keep riding. I think they shouldn't be checking fares during the first year. Hopefully those two girls got a warning only, no fine.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 2, 2012 13:04:58 GMT -8
Park-and-ride occupancy at La Cienega has dropped to below 30%, due to the opening of the Venice/Robertson park-and-ride.
I estimate the current ridership at around 12,000 - 13,000.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 4, 2012 1:33:29 GMT -8
I'm usually not going that way, but I've been in a position to commute via Expo basically daily for the last two weeks. Over that period I've seen fare checkers twice, both times on the route West. The first time they boarded at La Brea and scanned my TAP card. The second time they boarded at La Cienega and just wanted to see TAP or other evidence of ticket (not even scanning). That time, there were two teenage girls next to me without proof of fare. The checkers then tag-teamed the girls, escorting them off at Culver City, where it looked like they got fined. Not to justify scofflaws, but it seemed like kind of harsh treatment for a couple of girls who looked like they were still figuring out Metro Rail. Hope they keep riding. I think they shouldn't be checking fares during the first year. Hopefully those two girls got a warning only, no fine. I couldn't disagree more. They need to instill a culture of paying fares. I can't tell you how many times on the Red Line people say to me they never check fares so you really don't have to pay, but once they see someone checking it changes their tune (sometimes they have to nearly a 100 times before seeing anyone check). Why would you think it is okay for these girls to not to pay a fare? They obviously know they need to pay. A $250 reminder would do a lot of good. Ridership should not have to rely on people thinking they can ride for free and if we are going to use a proof of payment system they should be checking fares and write tickets for evaders. Warnings do next to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 5, 2012 10:16:15 GMT -8
One thing I would add though is that our idiotic line based fare system is not intuitive to anyone new to the system so if these 2 girls had purchased tickets on the Red Line, they may not be aware that they have to purchase another ticket for the Expo line. I think some of the fare inspectors have gotten really good at targeting out of town tourists and writing them tickets that way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 5, 2012 10:45:34 GMT -8
It looks like Expo operations are getting more and more smoother. I don't ride the section on Flower but the section on Exposition is always on schedule.
ATP is still stopping trains occasionally in the middle of nowhere and the section between La Cienega and Culver City seems to be usually very slow, but as the operators get used to the line, ATP seems to be less and less a problem. I wonder why ATP on the Red and Purple Lines works much better than on the Expo Line. Perhaps they have better trains or a better ATP system there.
|
|