|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2015 13:03:04 GMT -8
I thought Orange Line was already having capacity issues because it was built as BRT.
You could have built Expo Line as a subway. It would cost 4 times more -- over $10 billion -- yet, the ridership would be perhaps 20% higher.
I thought SGV already had Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Apr 2, 2015 13:22:33 GMT -8
Laws or not, signals or not, so long as these rail networks are designed to share space with automobiles and pedestrians these accidents will persist. Sometimes the results will be fatal and the rest of the time they will amount to great expenses of time and money to rectify. There's been much conversation here about the driver in this event. How about the train operator who experienced it? Saw it happening in real time, knew what was happening yet was powerless to stop it. Traumatic stuff. Eventually that operator may return to work, living with that memory. I hope that Metro provides thorough PTSD support for it's operators. The sadness, for me, is that if the designers and implementors of the rail system were adamant about grade separation a lot of needless suffering could be avoided and the rail network would be fundamentally safer and more efficient for it. My 2ยข. I personally think we have gone too far in the light rail realm overall. Somehow light rail is seen as the answer everywhere whether it is in corridors more appropriate for commuter rail (like the very eastern SGV), bus like the Orange Line (where the Orange Line is actually faster than Expo from Chatsworth to Balboa) or dense corridors like West and South Los Angeles where a subway along Wilshire and Vermont would have been a better use of dollars than Expo or the Crenshaw Line IMHO. You get what you pay for and even though we have spent $4.5B on Expo and the Crenshaw Line, they are built on the cheap. We keep seeing problems whether it is the slow speed of the line, the accidents, the lack of fare control because almost none of the stations have fare gates, the lack of density along much of the line and poor pedestrian connections because Expo is not in the areas where people live, work and want to go in many cases, and so on. The kicker is that light rail is the most inefficient from a cost recovery standpoint compared to bus or subway. The subway returns nearly twice in cost recovery % vs. the light rail system. That is real dollars every year gone. The Orange Line is terrible. It's fast, but it lacks the capacity and quality of ride of light rail. It's also an unfair comparison to compare an at-grade light rail with close stops going through the densest part of the city vs a busway on its own private ROW going through the sparse west San Fernando Valley. Using your logic, the red line clearly should have been light rail because the Green Line has the fastest average speed of all the rail lines. NYC's subways should be light rail too, as I'm fairly a certain even Expo beats an NYC local train. $4.5 Billion actual.y isn't a lot now. If they were built as HRT they would cost 2-3 times as much, so it's all relative. Also, the sheer cost of HRT subways mean the requirements for a corridor are very strict vs light rail. Turning the the Blue Line into HRT isn't magically going to make the cost recovery ratio higher. It's like the BRT proponents comparing the Orange Line to the Gold Line and touting the high ridership of the Orange Line as success for BRT. You can't compare two vastly different corridors. If LRT was placed on the Orange Line it would probably out perform the busway. A more acturate comparison of cost recovery is looking at it per passenger. HRT is far fewer and only placed on high performing corridors, so it statistically has to have a better cost recovery versus LRT when the successes of LRT lines like the Blue Line are diluted by lower performing lines like the Gold Line. Sorry for any mistakes, I'm typing this on an iPad.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 2, 2015 13:30:12 GMT -8
I thought Orange Line was already having capacity issues because it was built as BRT. You could have built Expo Line as a subway. It would cost 4 times more -- over $10 billion -- yet, the ridership would be perhaps 20% higher. I thought SGV already had Metrolink. Orange Line is not at capacity and Metro has said that repeatedly as well. It has less than half the ridership of the Wilshire bus line in the same distance. Yes, Eastern SGV has Metrolink. Does Claremont really need light rail in addition to Metrolink. It will take about twice as long to get Downtown from there as it would on Metrolink. Doesn't bode well for ridership at all even if San Bernadino continues to cut its popular Metrolink Line. Not talking about building Expo underground, but rather building a subway in a better corridor. Expo stations are often not in great pedestrian areas or in places close to business or attractions or even dense areas outside of SC, Downtown, and Downtown SM stations. Some of these areas are just horrible for pedestrians as others have noted on the forum. That is not a good fit for a mass transit line.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 2, 2015 13:34:25 GMT -8
I thought Orange Line was already having capacity issues because it was built as BRT. You could have built Expo Line as a subway. It would cost 4 times more -- over $10 billion -- yet, the ridership would be perhaps 20% higher. I thought SGV already had Metrolink. Nope, it's ridership is far less than some bus routes like Wilshire or Vermont that share the road with cars. Claiming it's at capacity is a pretty offensive lie, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2015 14:02:27 GMT -8
I've never ridden it but I've heard it's crowded. A three-car train can carry 5 times a single bus can carry. Orange Line is carrying 30,000 riders a day with 8 minute headways. Blue Line carries 90,000 riders a day with 6-minute headways. So, the Orange Line seems about twice as crowded as the Blue Line using simple arithmetic. Knowing that the Blue Line is crowded, this sounds pretty crowded to me.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2015 14:14:17 GMT -8
Not talking about building Expo underground, but rather building a subway in a better corridor. Expo stations are often not in great pedestrian areas or in places close to business or attractions or even dense areas outside of SC, Downtown, and Downtown SM stations. Some of these areas are just horrible for pedestrians as others have noted on the forum. That is not a good fit for a mass transit line. What you are saying has nothing to do with where the stations are located and where the lines are being built. It all has to do with how LA is structured. LA neither has centralized business and commercial areas nor residential population centers. We can say that it's the biggest village in the world. This shouldn't be an excuse to not build the Expo Line or other lines, or transit in general. A residence who lives in Culver City or parts of the Westside can't care less about a subway running along Vermont or Wilshire etc. This said, there is a subway being built along the Wilshire Corridor; so, I don't see what you are complaining about. With the money spent on the Expo Line, you can't build more than a few miles of subway. Still, Expo Line will easily reach the ridership of the Blue Line and will probably score a higher ridership-per-cost number than the Purple Line extension to the sea.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 2, 2015 14:25:24 GMT -8
I personally think we have gone too far in the light rail realm overall. Somehow light rail is seen as the answer everywhere whether it is in corridors more appropriate for commuter rail (like the very eastern SGV), bus like the Orange Line (where the Orange Line is actually faster than Expo from Chatsworth to Balboa) or dense corridors like West and South Los Angeles where a subway along Wilshire and Vermont would have been a better use of dollars than Expo or the Crenshaw Line IMHO. You get what you pay for and even though we have spent $4.5B on Expo and the Crenshaw Line, they are built on the cheap. We keep seeing problems whether it is the slow speed of the line, the accidents, the lack of fare control because almost none of the stations have fare gates, the lack of density along much of the line and poor pedestrian connections because Expo is not in the areas where people live, work and want to go in many cases, and so on. The kicker is that light rail is the most inefficient from a cost recovery standpoint compared to bus or subway. The subway returns nearly twice in cost recovery % vs. the light rail system. That is real dollars every year gone. The Orange Line is terrible. It's fast, but it lacks the capacity and quality of ride of light rail. It's also an unfair comparison to compare an at-grade light rail with close stops going through the densest part of the city vs a busway on its own private ROW going through the sparse west San Fernando Valley. Using your logic, the red line clearly should have been light rail because the Green Line has the fastest average speed of all the rail lines. NYC's subways should be light rail too, as I'm fairly a certain even Expo beats an NYC local train. $4.5 Billion actual.y isn't a lot now. If they were built as HRT they would cost 2-3 times as much, so it's all relative. Also, the sheer cost of HRT subways mean the requirements for a corridor are very strict vs light rail. Turning the the Blue Line into HRT isn't magically going to make the cost recovery ratio higher. It's like the BRT proponents comparing the Orange Line to the Gold Line and touting the high ridership of the Orange Line as success for BRT. You can't compare two vastly different corridors. If LRT was placed on the Orange Line it would probably out perform the busway. A more acturate comparison of cost recovery is looking at it per passenger. HRT is far fewer and only placed on high performing corridors, so it statistically has to have a better cost recovery versus LRT when the successes of LRT lines like the Blue Line are diluted by lower performing lines like the Gold Line. Sorry for any mistakes, I'm typing this on an iPad. The Expo corridor is not the most dense part of the city. Hollywood, Koreatown, the Wilshire corridor are far more dense. Not even close. Orange Line would not be materially faster with light rail nor is it at capacity. You could make an argument for the part East of the 405 being converted to light rail, but even then it is a very expensive proposition and it would have to connect to the 405 corridor Line to make any sense at all. I don't think the Blue Line should have been built as subway, but if it were its cost recovery would be much higher. First of all ridership would be much higher, because you wouldn't have the capacity problems where people sometimes have to stand now and it would be much faster. You wouldn't have near the fare evasion problem you have now with the Blue Line because of fare gates. You wouldn't have all the accidents with cars and other occasional damage you have from having the system exposed to the elements. Just think about the accident on Sat. You have damage to one of the cars, a big worker's comp claim from the train operator, medical claims by passengers. Oh and the line was shut down for 24 hours and missed thousands of passengers from the sold out soccer game at the Coliseum that night. My guess is that they still had to pay the operators scheduled even if they didn't work the next 24 hours as well as a ton of other workers for dealing with the accident. The cars on light rail don't last as long. The Blue Line cars won't last as long as the subway cars even with a rebuild. Also, the Blue Line stations are being rebuilt after being exposed to the elements over the years. It just isn't as efficient to have an operator run a 3 car train as it is for one to run a 6 car train. Also, you pretty much have to have a maintance facility for each light rail line. Even though the Blue Line has high ridership, it is still relatively bad from a cost recovery standpoint (no where near the Red Line). The list goes on and on. I am not saying there shouldn't be any light rail. Just that we have gone way too far in that direction, while ignoring better corridors. The San Bernardino Metrolink Line is another example. It has pretty high ridership for a commuter line, yet instead of upgrading it with more double track and even electrification, it has basically been ignored so we can build light rail north of it in a less dense area. San Bernardino has even cut its service on its portion of the Line. Sure, there are political realities to all of this and that is why it has come to pass like this, but go to Washington D.C. for an idea of what could have been. Metro is going to have to raise fares quite a bit in the future. A lot of this has to do with continually building low cost recovery light rail.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 2, 2015 14:32:39 GMT -8
Not talking about building Expo underground, but rather building a subway in a better corridor. Expo stations are often not in great pedestrian areas or in places close to business or attractions or even dense areas outside of SC, Downtown, and Downtown SM stations. Some of these areas are just horrible for pedestrians as others have noted on the forum. That is not a good fit for a mass transit line. What you are saying has nothing to do with where the stations are located and where the lines are being built. It all has to do with how LA is structured. LA neither has centralized business and commercial areas nor residential population centers. We can say that it's the biggest village in the world. This shouldn't be an excuse to not build the Expo Line or other lines, or transit in general. A residence who lives in Culver City or parts of the Westside can't care less about a subway running along Vermont or Wilshire etc. This said, there is a subway being built along the Wilshire Corridor; so, I don't see what you are complaining about. With the money spent on the Expo Line, you can't build more than a few miles of subway. Still, Expo Line will easily reach the ridership of the Blue Line and will probably score a higher ridership-per-cost number than the Purple Line extension to the sea. No, Expo will be no where near the Purple Line's cost recovery. No where close. Hollywood, Koreatown, Westwood, Beverly Hills even Century City are far better for pedestrians than places like Venice Blvd. and Olympic Blvd. Not all of LA is the same as the Expo corridor. Some places are much more walkable.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 3, 2015 7:39:55 GMT -8
The Orange Line is terrible. It's fast, but it lacks the capacity and quality of ride of light rail. It's also an unfair comparison to compare an at-grade light rail with close stops going through the densest part of the city vs a busway on its own private ROW going through the sparse west San Fernando Valley. Using your logic, the red line clearly should have been light rail because the Green Line has the fastest average speed of all the rail lines. NYC's subways should be light rail too, as I'm fairly a certain even Expo beats an NYC local train. $4.5 Billion actual.y isn't a lot now. If they were built as HRT they would cost 2-3 times as much, so it's all relative. Also, the sheer cost of HRT subways mean the requirements for a corridor are very strict vs light rail. Turning the the Blue Line into HRT isn't magically going to make the cost recovery ratio higher. It's like the BRT proponents comparing the Orange Line to the Gold Line and touting the high ridership of the Orange Line as success for BRT. You can't compare two vastly different corridors. If LRT was placed on the Orange Line it would probably out perform the busway. A more acturate comparison of cost recovery is looking at it per passenger. HRT is far fewer and only placed on high performing corridors, so it statistically has to have a better cost recovery versus LRT when the successes of LRT lines like the Blue Line are diluted by lower performing lines like the Gold Line.Sorry for any mistakes, I'm typing this on an iPad. The Expo corridor is not the most dense part of the city. Hollywood, Koreatown, the Wilshire corridor are far more dense. Not even close. Orange Line would not be materially faster with light rail nor is it at capacity. You could make an argument for the part East of the 405 being converted to light rail, but even then it is a very expensive proposition and it would have to connect to the 405 corridor Line to make any sense at all. With the Orange Line conversion and connection with 405 Corridor, that would be important nexus, when that time comes (my mind it will be after you've completed the Sepulveda Pass to at least the Expo Line) however the West Valley would see higher demand through the pass if the Orange Line is converted and run 30% faster with greater passenger carrying capacity, that is your 101-405 alternative reliever. There's delays and workers comp when people commit suicides on the Red Line and it happens on par to this accident on Expo Line. Ridership wouldn't be much higher if this was a subway even with the slightly faster speed through Downtown LA and Long Beach because the mid corridor of the line is where most of the riders are traveling the speeds are comparable. With fare evasion, that not just a gating issue it is a security quality of life issue, think about how much it costs to implement and maintain the gates to only catch maybe 0.5% more fares, that's like trying to kill a gnat with a nuclear bomb. Plus based on your own arguments about Heavy Rail vs Light Rail, with all the infrastructure that is required for the corridor it wouldn't justify the expense which further reduces the cost-effectiveness. And to make this a busway would put you in the same issue but the opposite effect where the demand for the line would eat operation costs of the amount of drivers and buses you would need. With capacity, that is a vehicle length issue. Calgary's LRT carries a ridership density on par with Heavy Rail lines (about 10K-12K per mile) and its core line that runs in the NW and South parts of the city runs like the Blue Line on a railroad corridor they are upgrading platforms to hold 4 car LRV's News flash, Metro is about to replace the first 30 Red Line cars that has been in operation since 1993 before the Purple Line extension is completed. Check metro.net type in Red Line cars and you'll see it. So that argument is moot, the Blue Line cars needing to be replaced was due to Metro board's ambivalence of needing a mid-life rehab when they purchased the Breda cars, originally they were thinking of replacing them when the new order came in because they missed a critical mid-life rehab. That's the biggest cause, DC Metro replaces their rail cars with new equipment on par with our system because of the high technology involved in the equipment. With the maintenance facility needs if there is one site large enough to hold all the trains we need, I'm pretty sure we'll take it. Besides other Heavy Rail systems have multiple yards throughout its network, Chicago has a yard for each of its Heavy Rail lines, DC Metro has one for each leg of its system, BART same thing. That is because of San Bernardino County's transportation system being so tax adverse and fiscally conservative in not wanting to operate more service than it can, that's why there is a reduction in service. If we can get away with charging higher distance based fares for the rail system and leaving the bus system in absymal shape without Title VI issues breathing down our backs like DC can. But the cost issue has more to do with other factors in the cost of operating the system, fare collection, security, etc.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 3, 2015 8:12:52 GMT -8
I thought Orange Line was already having capacity issues because it was built as BRT. You could have built Expo Line as a subway. It would cost 4 times more -- over $10 billion -- yet, the ridership would be perhaps 20% higher. I thought SGV already had Metrolink. Nope, it's ridership is far less than some bus routes like Wilshire or Vermont that share the road with cars. Claiming it's at capacity is a pretty offensive lie, imo. Ridership as a statistic by itself doesn't tell the whole story (hence my signature). With Wilshire and Vermont bus lines, riders are traveling a shorter distance about an average of 3.5-4.5 miles in length. Orange Line riders travel on average of 7.0 miles in length. All three use 60' buses but it is how the space is recycled throughout the run of the trip is what we need to pay attention to. With the Vermont Line there's a high turnover of seats and standees between 3rd Street and Adams Blvd, Wilshire Corridor the biggest turnover occur at high demand spots like Westwood, Beverly Drive, Fairfax Avenue where it meets with the Purple Line. The majority of Orange Line passengers are destined to transfer to the Red Line hence the higher loading because more people traveling a longer distance across the Valley.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 3, 2015 10:29:49 GMT -8
Nope, it's ridership is far less than some bus routes like Wilshire or Vermont that share the road with cars. Claiming it's at capacity is a pretty offensive lie, imo. Ridership as a statistic by itself doesn't tell the whole story (hence my signature). With Wilshire and Vermont Bus lines riders are traveling a shorter distance about an average of 3.5-4.5 miles in length, Orange Line riders travel on average of 7.0 miles in length. All three use 60' buses but it is how the space is recycled throughout the run of the trip is what we need to pay attention to. With the Vermont Line there's a high turnover of seats and standees between 3rd Street and Adams Blvd, Wilshire Corridor the biggest turnover occur at high demand spots like Westwood, Beverly Drive, Fairfax Avenue where it meets with the Purple Line. The majority of Orange Line passengers are destined to transfer to the Red Line hence the higher loading because more people traveling a longer distance across the Valley. Those are good points about distance.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 3, 2015 16:10:57 GMT -8
The Expo corridor is not the most dense part of the city. Hollywood, Koreatown, the Wilshire corridor are far more dense. Not even close. Orange Line would not be materially faster with light rail nor is it at capacity. You could make an argument for the part East of the 405 being converted to light rail, but even then it is a very expensive proposition and it would have to connect to the 405 corridor Line to make any sense at all. With the Orange Line conversion and connection with 405 Corridor, that would be important nexus, when that time comes (my mind it will be after you've completed the Sepulveda Pass to at least the Expo Line) however the West Valley would see higher demand through the pass if the Orange Line is converted and run 30% faster with greater passenger carrying capacity, that is your 101-405 alternative reliever. There's delays and workers comp when people commit suicides on the Red Line and it happens on par to this accident on Expo Line. Ridership wouldn't be much higher if this was a subway even with the slightly faster speed through Downtown LA and Long Beach because the mid corridor of the line is where most of the riders are traveling the speeds are comparable. With fare evasion, that not just a gating issue it is a security quality of life issue, think about how much it costs to implement and maintain the gates to only catch maybe 0.5% more fares, that's like trying to kill a gnat with a nuclear bomb. Plus based on your own arguments about Heavy Rail vs Light Rail, with all the infrastructure that is required for the corridor it wouldn't justify the expense which further reduces the cost-effectiveness. And to make this a busway would put you in the same issue but the opposite effect where the demand for the line would eat operation costs of the amount of drivers and buses you would need. With capacity, that is a vehicle length issue. Calgary's LRT carries a ridership density on par with Heavy Rail lines (about 10K-12K per mile) and its core line that runs in the NW and South parts of the city runs like the Blue Line on a railroad corridor they are upgrading platforms to hold 4 car LRV's News flash, Metro is about to replace the first 30 Red Line cars that has been in operation since 1993 before the Purple Line extension is completed. Check metro.net type in Red Line cars and you'll see it. So that argument is moot, the Blue Line cars needing to be replaced was due to Metro board's ambivalence of needing a mid-life rehab when they purchased the Breda cars, originally they were thinking of replacing them when the new order came in because they missed a critical mid-life rehab. That's the biggest cause, DC Metro replaces their rail cars with new equipment on par with our system because of the high technology involved in the equipment. With the maintenance facility needs if there is one site large enough to hold all the trains we need, I'm pretty sure we'll take it. Besides other Heavy Rail systems have multiple yards throughout its network, Chicago has a yard for each of its Heavy Rail lines, DC Metro has one for each leg of its system, BART same thing. That is because of San Bernardino County's transportation system being so tax adverse and fiscally conservative in not wanting to operate more service than it can, that's why there is a reduction in service. If we can get away with charging higher distance based fares for the rail system and leaving the bus system in absymal shape without Title VI issues breathing down our backs like DC can. But the cost issue has more to do with other factors in the cost of operatinga the system, fare collection, security, etc. I agree with a lot of this, but the Red and Purple Lines have much better on time performance and fewer delays than the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines. There are some suicides on the Red Line, but not anywhere near the amount of delays and problems you have on these lines. Not only do you have more accidents, but you also have more problems with the overhead catenary. In major storms there always seems to be a tree that falls on them or some other wind damage. The record speaks for itself with the on time performance only half of the subway and I don't remember the subway ever being down for most of the weekend. Metro is still quite a ways from replacing the subway cars. The Blue Line cars were to be replaced by now, but Metro bungled the purchase by messing around with Breda. Only Metro knows exactly how much more in fares they are getting with fare gates. Initial data points to it being quite significant as revenue has risen dramatically on the Red Line, while ridership has slightly decreased. Metro has been scrambling to add fare gates wherever possible since the first gates were locked. It all points to a conclusion that Metro was very much understating or underestimating how much fare evasion was taking place. Overall, I just think our system is going to be very limited both systemically and from a financial standpoint. Yes it is a little bigger being almost all light rail, but it is a little weak. I know someone who lives in Culver City and works Downtown. You'd think he'd be all in on Expo, but when I asked whether he uses Expo, he said he rarely did because he can drive to work a lot faster and why bother with extra time to deal with the homeless and crazies you get on the train too. It is going to be hard to attract choice riders who pay full fare with that. Also, the region is having trouble really building around the stations as what is built usually comes with a huge parking garage. There isn't a lot of support to change that zoning and Nimbyism without a major breakthrough.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Apr 3, 2015 19:14:49 GMT -8
Part of the problem with Light Rail in Los Angeles is LADOT. Look at the Blue Line on Washington ever since it got decent signal synchronization. The Blue Line flies, despite being bounded by the street running. Even with the street running, you could probably shave off a good 10 minutes just by giving Expo signal preemption. The way city DOTs treat light rail pretty much means any street running sections cripples the entire line. Also, I've always argued for ban of left turns around light rail and center-running BRT. Car-Centric DOTs would hate it, but it would significantly cut down on accidents.
You can't expect people to take the train when a full rush-hour Expo Train doesn't even have priority over 5 SOVs making a left turn. Might as well be in the comfort of your own car.
As for HRT vs LRT and cost recovery, you're basically deciding to pay now or later. The sheer up front cost of HRT means LRT is necessary in modern times to build any decent sized network.
We can also argue that the money spent on Expo could have been used to build more Red Line all we want, but politically there is no guarantee that simply deciding not build Expo would have meant the Purple Line got to the Sea or the Red Line would have went down Vermont. The Purple Line also wouldn't get to Santa Monica until something like 2040 at the current rate of construction anyway. A Wilshire subway to VA with a possible extension in the future, with a complete Expo Line is a much better deal.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2015 14:41:24 GMT -8
I thought Orange Line was already having capacity issues because it was built as BRT. You could have built Expo Line as a subway. It would cost 4 times more -- over $10 billion -- yet, the ridership would be perhaps 20% higher. I thought SGV already had Metrolink. Orange Line is not at capacity and Metro has said that repeatedly as well. It has less than half the ridership of the Wilshire bus line in the same distance. Metro doesn't release any stats on Wilshire bus line(s). The number you are thinking of is the 20/720 ridership stats and that's a much longer bus line with lots of shorter distance local rides on the Westside. You can't compare the two like that. Orange Line is not near its total road capacity because total road capacity doesn't take into account peak demand... if you view a bus seat at 8AM or 6PM the same as 11AM or 10PM, then Orange Line is way below capacity. But Orange Line it is pretty well near the peak capacity with existing 60ft buses. Metro cannot add any more headways without clogging up the bus way during rush hour. That's why they added the short-lived Express Bus to Van Nuys Blvd in a failed experiment to relive Orange Line congestion. And the congestion is one the reason why Metro combined the normal Rapid buses in the Valley into a single "Valley-U" Rapid in order to discourage people from transferring to the Orange Line when going from East SFV to West SFV and vice versa. If Orange Line was not near capacity, then Metro will have no reason to discourage transfers to the faster Orange Line.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 6, 2015 15:53:06 GMT -8
Orange Line is not at capacity and Metro has said that repeatedly as well. It has less than half the ridership of the Wilshire bus line in the same distance. Metro doesn't release any stats on Wilshire bus line(s). The number you are thinking of is the 20/720 ridership stats and that's a much longer bus line with lots of shorter distance local rides on the Westside. You can't compare the two like that. Orange Line is not near its total road capacity because total road capacity doesn't take into account peak demand... if you view a bus seat at 8AM or 6PM the same as 11AM or 10PM, then Orange Line is way below capacity. But Orange Line it is pretty well near the peak capacity with existing 60ft buses. Metro cannot add any more headways without clogging up the bus way during rush hour. That's why they added the short-lived Express Bus to Van Nuys Blvd in a failed experiment to relive Orange Line congestion. And the congestion is one the reason why Metro combined the normal Rapid buses in the Valley into a single "Valley-U" Rapid in order to discourage people from transferring to the Orange Line when going from East SFV to West SFV and vice versa. If Orange Line was not near capacity, then Metro will have no reason to discourage transfers to the faster Orange Line. Line 20 goes exclusively on Wilshire except for a very small segment in Downtown Santa Monica. Line 720 does goes East of Downtown LA that is not on Wilshire. However, there are also other buses on Wilshire such as BBB #2 so yeah, it maybe somewhere at the 50k range when you add it all up, which still far exceeds the Orange Line. In fact it is about double the Orange Line ridership. The Orange Line at 18 miles is longer than Wilshire Blvd. at 16 miles, so that argument is out. Competing Metrolink ridership in the corridor is absolutely abysmal. If there were huge demand in the corridor that was being unmet by the Orange Line, you would think there would be some spillover to Metrolink, yet the Valley stations are among the least used in Metrolink's entire 512 mile system. Finally, Metro has emphatically stated many times that the Orange Line is not at capacity. The capacity lie is something repeated by people in the Valley with no factual basis. Perhaps it is unintentional as standing room buses are not uncommon in the City, but likely very rare in the Valley where public transportation has had little traction over the years.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Apr 6, 2015 19:35:10 GMT -8
Metro doesn't release any stats on Wilshire bus line(s). The number you are thinking of is the 20/720 ridership stats and that's a much longer bus line with lots of shorter distance local rides on the Westside. You can't compare the two like that. Orange Line is not near its total road capacity because total road capacity doesn't take into account peak demand... if you view a bus seat at 8AM or 6PM the same as 11AM or 10PM, then Orange Line is way below capacity. But Orange Line it is pretty well near the peak capacity with existing 60ft buses. Metro cannot add any more headways without clogging up the bus way during rush hour. That's why they added the short-lived Express Bus to Van Nuys Blvd in a failed experiment to relive Orange Line congestion. And the congestion is one the reason why Metro combined the normal Rapid buses in the Valley into a single "Valley-U" Rapid in order to discourage people from transferring to the Orange Line when going from East SFV to West SFV and vice versa. If Orange Line was not near capacity, then Metro will have no reason to discourage transfers to the faster Orange Line. Line 20 goes exclusively on Wilshire except for a very small segment in Downtown Santa Monica. Line 720 does goes East of Downtown LA that is not on Wilshire. However, there are also other buses on Wilshire such as BBB #2 so yeah, it maybe somewhere at the 50k range when you add it all up, which still far exceeds the Orange Line. In fact it is about double the Orange Line ridership. The Orange Line at 18 miles is longer than Wilshire Blvd. at 16 miles, so that argument is out. Competing Metrolink ridership in the corridor is absolutely abysmal. If there were huge demand in the corridor that was being unmet by the Orange Line, you would think there would be some spillover to Metrolink, yet the Valley stations are among the least used in Metrolink's entire 512 mile system. Finally, Metro has emphatically stated many times that the Orange Line is not at capacity. The capacity lie is something repeated by people in the Valley with no factual basis. Perhaps it is unintentional as standing room buses are not uncommon in the City, but likely very rare in the Valley where public transportation has had little traction over the years. Frankly, I haven't seen much hard evidence that Orange Line is not at capacity either, so unless links are provided your claim has no factual basis either. First, we need to actually define what at-capcity means, because arguments against an LRT conversion of Orange Line can be certainly applied against the building of the Purple Line. You also missed the point of his post. The Wilshire Corridor has more riders, but many are doing local trips, which means more people are exchanging seats throughout the trip. Also, pure ridership numbers don't take into account time of day. From 7-9am the Orange could be moving the same amount of people or more as the Wilshire Corridor. At 11am, your chances of scoring a seat are much higher while on Wilshire, you won't get a seat even at 10pm. There's also the issue of the North-Hollywood to Van Nuys stretch clearly takes the brunt of the trip, and taking into account LADOT's signal grip on the Orange Line. Overall, on whatever you side you view it from, there are so many factors that any meaningful comparison is difficult. To me, the lack of Metrolink ridership is no surprise. You only get 10-12 trains each way to Chatsworth each day, and Chatsworth is the only station with decent connections because of the Orange Line. If you're not going to/past downtown LA, Metrolink makes no sense especially if you need to go reverse-peak direction. The lack of trains past Chatsworth means anyone coming from someplace like Oxnard to a station in the Valley will be on Amtrak, even if they buying a monthly Metrolink ticket.(Monthly pass holders can take Amtrak trains.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 6, 2015 21:00:37 GMT -8
Line 20 goes exclusively on Wilshire except for a very small segment in Downtown Santa Monica. Line 720 does goes East of Downtown LA that is not on Wilshire. However, there are also other buses on Wilshire such as BBB #2 so yeah, it maybe somewhere at the 50k range when you add it all up, which still far exceeds the Orange Line. In fact it is about double the Orange Line ridership. The Orange Line at 18 miles is longer than Wilshire Blvd. at 16 miles, so that argument is out. Competing Metrolink ridership in the corridor is absolutely abysmal. If there were huge demand in the corridor that was being unmet by the Orange Line, you would think there would be some spillover to Metrolink, yet the Valley stations are among the least used in Metrolink's entire 512 mile system. Finally, Metro has emphatically stated many times that the Orange Line is not at capacity. The capacity lie is something repeated by people in the Valley with no factual basis. Perhaps it is unintentional as standing room buses are not uncommon in the City, but likely very rare in the Valley where public transportation has had little traction over the years. Frankly, I haven't seen much hard evidence that Orange Line is not at capacity either, so unless links are provided your claim has no factual basis either. First, we need to actually define what at-capcity means, because arguments against an LRT conversion of Orange Line can be certainly applied against the building of the Purple Line. You also missed the point of his post. The Wilshire Corridor has more riders, but many are doing local trips, which means more people are exchanging seats throughout the trip. Also, pure ridership numbers don't take into account time of day. From 7-9am the Orange could be moving the same amount of people or more as the Wilshire Corridor. At 11am, your chances of scoring a seat are much higher while on Wilshire, you won't get a seat even at 10pm. There's also the issue of the North-Hollywood to Van Nuys stretch clearly takes the brunt of the trip, and taking into account LADOT's signal grip on the Orange Line. Overall, on whatever you side you view it from, there are so many factors that any meaningful comparison is difficult. To me, the lack of Metrolink ridership is no surprise. You only get 10-12 trains each way to Chatsworth each day, and Chatsworth is the only station with decent connections because of the Orange Line. If you're not going to/past downtown LA, Metrolink makes no sense especially if you need to go reverse-peak direction. The lack of trains past Chatsworth means anyone coming from someplace like Oxnard to a station in the Valley will be on Amtrak, even if they buying a monthly Metrolink ticket.(Monthly pass holders can take Amtrak trains.) Just because it is allegedly at capacity for a very short time in one direction twice a day is not a reason to convert to rail. In fact this goes to the heart of my point of the inefficiency of some of our system. Good rail has two way traffic throughout the day. Otherwise you are running empty trains all the time one direction, which is not sustainable without huge subsidies. If you are running just a big rush hour service you might as well just go with commuter rail. Everybody thinks Metrolink is too exoensive and they want to build light rail so they can ride everywhere for $1.75. However, if you are building poor rail lines with weak inconsistent demand you will need to raise fares. Even with our current system, fares will soon rise to $2.25. It will be even more if we build poor rail. Better signal priority, higher capacity busses are two easy options that could ease any short term crowding. A better long term option would be to extend the Red Line to Burbank Airport, which would create a solid connection to the two Metrolink lines as well as future HSR. Also, it would connect to one of the Valley's only regional destinations that would provide more even service throughout the day. The Metrolink Line here serves a lot more than Chatsworth here. Van Nuys and Northridge are more the heart of the Valley, but are very underutilized now. Instead of competing against our Metrolink system our system should complement it and it won't look good to taxpayers who are being asked to rip out something they just paid for.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 7, 2015 7:01:34 GMT -8
Regarding Metrolink in the Valley, I'm starting to be swayed by the argument that Metrolink should abandon the Ventura County line and transfer their track rights over to Amtrak for increased service on the LOSSAN corridor. The number of riders served by the VC line could certainly utilize Amtrak instead - as seen by Amtrak's recent decision to add a northbound train from Ventura to Santa Barbara for the morning commuters there.
Meanwhile, the Burbank Airport to Union Station corridor would be better served by a Metro line with frequent service, given how dense that corridor is.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 7, 2015 9:08:58 GMT -8
Regarding Metrolink in the Valley, I'm starting to be swayed by the argument that Metrolink should abandon the Ventura County line and transfer their track rights over to Amtrak for increased service on the LOSSAN corridor. The number of riders served by the VC line could certainly utilize Amtrak instead - as seen by Amtrak's recent decision to add a northbound train from Ventura to Santa Barbara for the morning commuters there. Meanwhile, the Burbank Airport to Union Station corridor would be better served by a Metro line with frequent service, given how dense that corridor is. I think you need to learn a lot more about this whole issue. Who exactly is making this argument? Name names, please. Metrolink is double tracking in the San Fernando Valley from Balboa Blvd. to DeSoto Avenue. Environmental is well underway. There is also an addition of platforms at Van Nuys and Northridge. The decision to add the train was not by Amtrak. Amtrak only operates the trains, but decisions are made by LOSSAN in coordination with the local counties and funding by the State of California. This might be funded by Caltrans as mitigation for a freeway project. Transit Coalition CSUN Tiger Team interns are working on a plan to relocate the Northridge Station from Wilbur Avenue to Reseda Boulevard to allow for a one transfer connection to the Reseda Blvd. buses that operate over 18 hours per day to allow for a direct connection to CSUN and Northridge Hospital Medical Center. With Measure R.2 coming in 2016, Transit Coalition is working to get funding firewalled into the Measure to operate trains every 30 minutes from Sylmar and Chatsworth to Union Station. Relocation of the Northridge Station would also be funded in this Measure, if we get it included.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 7, 2015 9:17:07 GMT -8
Regarding Metrolink in the Valley, I'm starting to be swayed by the argument that Metrolink should abandon the Ventura County line and transfer their track rights over to Amtrak for increased service on the LOSSAN corridor. The number of riders served by the VC line could certainly utilize Amtrak instead - as seen by Amtrak's recent decision to add a northbound train from Ventura to Santa Barbara for the morning commuters there. Meanwhile, the Burbank Airport to Union Station corridor would be better served by a Metro line with frequent service, given how dense that corridor is. I think you need to learn a lot more about this whole issue. Who exactly is making this argument? Name names, please. Metrolink is double tracking in the San Fernando Valley from Balboa Blvd. to DeSoto Avenue. Environmental is well underway. There is also an addition of platforms at Van Nuys and Northridge. The decision to add the train was not by Amtrak. Amtrak only operates the trains, but decisions are made by LOSSAN in coordination with the local counties and funding by the State of California. This might be funded by Caltrans as mitigation for a freeway project. Transit Coalition CSUN Tiger Team interns are working on a plan to relocate the Northridge Station from Wilbur Avenue to Reseda Boulevard to allow for a one transfer connection to the Reseda Blvd. buses that operate over 18 hours per day to allow for a direct connection to CSUN and Northridge Hospital Medical Center. With Measure R.2 coming in 2016, Transit Coalition is working to get funding firewalled into the Measure to operate trains every 30 minutes from Sylmar and Chatsworth to Union Station. Relocation of the Northridge Station would also be funded in this Measure, if we get it included. Though I like the idea of a Metrolink stop at Reseda, wouldn't it make more sense to relocate the Northridge station to Tampa, where it would be within walking distance of the Northridge Fashion Center and Walnut Grove Shopping Center?
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 7, 2015 9:33:28 GMT -8
Sorry, I don't recall where I read that argument before. I am, however, pretty sure that many of the author's other arguments regarding Metrolink were blasted here previously.
I am glad to hear about the relocation plan - the current location of the Northridge station is awkward, to say the least, and 30 minute headways would be very welcome. I'm just unsure how much demand the Valley will have for it. I know that the CSULA station does see significant student traffic, so a relocated Northridge station with better CSUN connectivity may provide the biggest boost to ridership.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 7, 2015 10:07:09 GMT -8
Metro doesn't release any stats on Wilshire bus line(s). The number you are thinking of is the 20/720 ridership stats and that's a much longer bus line with lots of shorter distance local rides on the Westside. You can't compare the two like that. Orange Line is not near its total road capacity because total road capacity doesn't take into account peak demand... if you view a bus seat at 8AM or 6PM the same as 11AM or 10PM, then Orange Line is way below capacity. But Orange Line it is pretty well near the peak capacity with existing 60ft buses. Metro cannot add any more headways without clogging up the bus way during rush hour. That's why they added the short-lived Express Bus to Van Nuys Blvd in a failed experiment to relive Orange Line congestion. And the congestion is one the reason why Metro combined the normal Rapid buses in the Valley into a single "Valley-U" Rapid in order to discourage people from transferring to the Orange Line when going from East SFV to West SFV and vice versa. If Orange Line was not near capacity, then Metro will have no reason to discourage transfers to the faster Orange Line. Line 20 goes exclusively on Wilshire except for a very small segment in Downtown Santa Monica. Line 720 does goes East of Downtown LA that is not on Wilshire. However, there are also other buses on Wilshire such as BBB #2 so yeah, it maybe somewhere at the 50k range when you add it all up, which still far exceeds the Orange Line. In fact it is about double the Orange Line ridership. The Orange Line at 18 miles is longer than Wilshire Blvd. at 16 miles, so that argument is out. Competing Metrolink ridership in the corridor is absolutely abysmal. If there were huge demand in the corridor that was being unmet by the Orange Line, you would think there would be some spillover to Metrolink, yet the Valley stations are among the least used in Metrolink's entire 512 mile system. Finally, Metro has emphatically stated many times that the Orange Line is not at capacity. The capacity lie is something repeated by people in the Valley with no factual basis. Perhaps it is unintentional as standing room buses are not uncommon in the City, but likely very rare in the Valley where public transportation has had little traction over the years. 1. 720 operates on Wilshire and Wittier. If you have stats that separate out number of boardings on Whittier from Whilsire, please share. Otherwise you are not having a discussion based on facts. Additionally, the travel patterns are different on Wilshire vs. Orange Line. You are comparing a suburban commuter service with a urban local bus line. It's an apples to oranges comparison (pun intended!) 2. Your definition of transit capacity is a very strange one that is not based on time and peak demand. Metro can run a lot more buses at 3AM so therefore, according to your logic, Orange Line is not at capacity? Capacity is defined by constrains in the system - i.e. it is a supply problem. If Metro cannot add any more headways during peak service hours, then it is by definition at capacity. If you cannot expand supply, the only other thing to do is try to reduce demand to manage the overcrowding. We know this is empirically true because Metro has tried several experiments (one that is ongoing right now with Valley U Rapid bus) to try to reduce demand on the Orange Line because it cannot expand capacity. There is probably a few things Metro can do with LADOT to increase capacity incrementally but there is a fundamental problem with bus bunching... you cannot keep increasing the number of vehicles in the corridor - all you will end up doing to clogging it at bottlenecks. The only solution is to get bigger vehicles - It doesn't have to be light rail... we can start with 80ft buses. Just because it is allegedly at capacity for a very short time in one direction twice a day is not a reason to convert to rail. In fact this goes to the heart of my point of the inefficiency of some of our system. Good rail has two way traffic throughout the day. Otherwise you are running empty trains all the time one direction, which is not sustainable without huge subsidies. If you are running just a big rush hour service you might as well just go with commuter rail. Everybody thinks Metrolink is too exoensive and they want to build light rail so they can ride everywhere for $1.75. However, if you are building poor rail lines with weak inconsistent demand you will need to raise fares. Even with our current system, fares will soon rise to $2.25. It will be even more if we build poor rail. Better signal priority, higher capacity busses are two easy options that could ease any short term crowding. A better long term option would be to extend the Red Line to Burbank Airport, which would create a solid connection to the two Metrolink lines as well as future HSR. Also, it would connect to one of the Valley's only regional destinations that would provide more even service throughout the day. The Metrolink Line here serves a lot more than Chatsworth here. Van Nuys and Northridge are more the heart of the Valley, but are very underutilized now. Instead of competing against our Metrolink system our system should complement it and it won't look good to taxpayers who are being asked to rip out something they just paid for. And see... we actually agree
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 7, 2015 13:43:20 GMT -8
I think you need to learn a lot more about this whole issue. Who exactly is making this argument? Name names, please. Metrolink is double tracking in the San Fernando Valley from Balboa Blvd. to DeSoto Avenue. Environmental is well underway. There is also an addition of platforms at Van Nuys and Northridge. The decision to add the train was not by Amtrak. Amtrak only operates the trains, but decisions are made by LOSSAN in coordination with the local counties and funding by the State of California. This might be funded by Caltrans as mitigation for a freeway project. Transit Coalition CSUN Tiger Team interns are working on a plan to relocate the Northridge Station from Wilbur Avenue to Reseda Boulevard to allow for a one transfer connection to the Reseda Blvd. buses that operate over 18 hours per day to allow for a direct connection to CSUN and Northridge Hospital Medical Center. With Measure R.2 coming in 2016, Transit Coalition is working to get funding firewalled into the Measure to operate trains every 30 minutes from Sylmar and Chatsworth to Union Station. Relocation of the Northridge Station would also be funded in this Measure, if we get it included. Though I like the idea of a Metrolink stop at Reseda, wouldn't it make more sense to relocate the Northridge station to Tampa, where it would be within walking distance of the Northridge Fashion Center and Walnut Grove Shopping Center? Actually no, Tampa Avenue is not a good option. Ridership to malls hardly exists. Transit use has been determined by existing bus lines. Tampa Avenue has hourly weekday and Saturday service. Even with the shopping centers mentioned, there is no Sunday service. Ridership is so poor, it functions as a lifeline service. Therefore, rail transit connectivity wouldn't be a good investment. On the other hand, Reseda Boulevard has weekday Rapid Service and local service from early to late, along with local service. The service level is robust for the ridership needs along the corridor, which includes the largest University campus in the state, a major hospital facility and other transit draws. The interaction of trains arriving every 30 minutes (Metrolink Strategic Plan 2015) at Reseda Blvd. and Parthenia St. with the frequent bus service would only boost overall ridership as something very useful to future and existing riders. If there were infill stations in the SF Valley on the Ventura County Line, they would be at Balboa Blvd. and Laurel Canyon, as they have the highest added ridership potentials.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 7, 2015 17:20:18 GMT -8
Regarding Metrolink in the Valley, I'm starting to be swayed by the argument that Metrolink should abandon the Ventura County line and transfer their track rights over to Amtrak for increased service on the LOSSAN corridor. The number of riders served by the VC line could certainly utilize Amtrak instead - as seen by Amtrak's recent decision to add a northbound train from Ventura to Santa Barbara for the morning commuters there. Meanwhile, the Burbank Airport to Union Station corridor would be better served by a Metro line with frequent service, given how dense that corridor is. I think you need to learn a lot more about this whole issue. Who exactly is making this argument? Name names, please. Metrolink is double tracking in the San Fernando Valley from Balboa Blvd. to DeSoto Avenue. Environmental is well underway. There is also an addition of platforms at Van Nuys and Northridge. The decision to add the train was not by Amtrak. Amtrak only operates the trains, but decisions are made by LOSSAN in coordination with the local counties and funding by the State of California. This might be funded by Caltrans as mitigation for a freeway project. Transit Coalition CSUN Tiger Team interns are working on a plan to relocate the Northridge Station from Wilbur Avenue to Reseda Boulevard to allow for a one transfer connection to the Reseda Blvd. buses that operate over 18 hours per day to allow for a direct connection to CSUN and Northridge Hospital Medical Center. With Measure R.2 coming in 2016, Transit Coalition is working to get funding firewalled into the Measure to operate trains every 30 minutes from Sylmar and Chatsworth to Union Station. Relocation of the Northridge Station would also be funded in this Measure, if we get it included. Very good to see the Transit Coalition behind a nice value add project like this. This seems like a pretty big benefit for relatively little cost, which is what we should be pursuing. Metro has been making some improvements to commuter rails through double tracking and additional sidings from Measure R. Yet, Metrolink ridership seems to be going nowhere. I wonder if people will really treat this as the benefit it is or is Metrolink too far gone. I really hope the former. We can't afford light rail everywhere and it doesn't make sense to build it in competition to a commuter rail system we have built, although probably underfunded. We should be building our system in conjunction with commuter rail to the benefit of both instead. Build the run through tracks at Union Station, the Red Line to Burbank Airport providing a link to the two Metrolink lines there, and finally build the Green Line to the Norwalk train Station for a connection to LOSSAN there. Of course, more double track and sidings and suddenly we'd have a pretty valuable resource working together with the Metro system. Maybe even the outlying counties would invest more in Metrolink then and Southern California could realize a fantastic commuter rail system.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2015 17:30:08 GMT -8
Frankly, I haven't seen much hard evidence that Orange Line is not at capacity either, so unless links are provided your claim has no factual basis either. First, we need to actually define what at-capcity means, because arguments against an LRT conversion of Orange Line can be certainly applied against the building of the Purple Line. You also missed the point of his post. The Wilshire Corridor has more riders, but many are doing local trips, which means more people are exchanging seats throughout the trip. Also, pure ridership numbers don't take into account time of day. From 7-9am the Orange could be moving the same amount of people or more as the Wilshire Corridor. At 11am, your chances of scoring a seat are much higher while on Wilshire, you won't get a seat even at 10pm. There's also the issue of the North-Hollywood to Van Nuys stretch clearly takes the brunt of the trip, and taking into account LADOT's signal grip on the Orange Line. Overall, on whatever you side you view it from, there are so many factors that any meaningful comparison is difficult. To me, the lack of Metrolink ridership is no surprise. You only get 10-12 trains each way to Chatsworth each day, and Chatsworth is the only station with decent connections because of the Orange Line. If you're not going to/past downtown LA, Metrolink makes no sense especially if you need to go reverse-peak direction. The lack of trains past Chatsworth means anyone coming from someplace like Oxnard to a station in the Valley will be on Amtrak, even if they buying a monthly Metrolink ticket.(Monthly pass holders can take Amtrak trains.) Here's the ultimate question that we need to figure out, in terms of upgrades to the Orange Line and talking about other corridors in building our transit system. With the Orange Line when we add the Sepulveda Pass corridor, I see this lines ridership needing further upgrades, the whole conversation about the Orange Line upgrade isn't about what's happening right now, its the foresight of anticipating higher demand in the longer run (20-30 years from now) FWIW. The signal priority upgrades are short term fixes for a longer term problem that will soon get maxed out, the point here is to start thinking, what happens when this gets maxed out during peak period? Hasn't that been the problem with LA's transportation system is that we are not planning in advance of our moves?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 7, 2015 17:51:42 GMT -8
I agree with a lot of this, but the Red and Purple Lines have much better on time performance and fewer delays than the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines. There are some suicides on the Red Line, but not anywhere near the amount of delays and problems you have on these lines. Not only do you have more accidents, but you also have more problems with the overhead catenary. In major storms there always seems to be a tree that falls on them or some other wind damage. The record speaks for itself with the on time performance only half of the subway and I don't remember the subway ever being down for most of the weekend. And if this HRT line was elevated or along an embankment next to trees and landscaping this will also occur, it shuts down some third rail elevated Metro's during a snow or ice storm, this is more to do with our HRT being isolated in a controlled built environment (the tunnel) where the LRT is out with the elements, it's a facile argument. They are very close to replacing the first 30 Red Line cars, they are starting the RFP for them right now in preparation for first extension to La Cienega. But that also comes this same C-word, the cost for what we are doing collect this bit of data, what it also shows is that along with your next point that the security hasn't done a good job checking fares and monitoring the safety of the system. The development issues are precisely why there will be more problems if more of the system went from LRT to full on HRT because like DC outside the urban core, the Parking Structures are massive to support the ridership needed for the lines farther from the urban core or the densification would be intense to stimulate the demand. With LRT there's a scale that doesn't scare hell out of communities right away and can enable some to organically up-zone and densify. Personally I wish we adopted the following for the system if we were more fiscally conservative; 1) Had a distance based-zone fare structure (like the Commuter Express routes) so that if you're traveling a longer distance you should pay more, what that also does is place a capacity limit on how much service you put on(improving fare box recovery and reduces maintenance costs) and, 2) Adopted a San Diego Trolley style approach of building LRT in outlying areas such as the Gold Line to Pomona/Claremont (that is where I think the line should end). Unless you have demand for high frequency like under every 10 minutes, most of the line can be strategically single tracked and only have double tracks at key locations and at stations and operate effectively every 15 minutes this way we are not overbuilding for the sake of it. This is the way most Light Rail systems are build around the world, now lines like the Blue Line to Long Beach, Expo to Santa Monica, hell even the Gold Line to Pasadena has the demand to need higher frequency outside of that single track and be strategic about it.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 7, 2015 18:15:38 GMT -8
I agree with a lot of this, but the Red and Purple Lines have much better on time performance and fewer delays than the Expo, Blue, and Gold Lines. There are some suicides on the Red Line, but not anywhere near the amount of delays and problems you have on these lines. Not only do you have more accidents, but you also have more problems with the overhead catenary. In major storms there always seems to be a tree that falls on them or some other wind damage. The record speaks for itself with the on time performance only half of the subway and I don't remember the subway ever being down for most of the weekend. And if this HRT line was elevated or along an embankment next to trees and landscaping this will also occur, it shuts down some third rail elevated Metro's during a snow or ice storm, this is more to do with our HRT being isolated in a controlled built environment (the tunnel) where the LRT is out with the elements, it's a facile argument. They are very close to replacing the first 30 Red Line cars, they are starting the RFP for them right now in preparation for first extension to La Cienega. But that also comes this same C-word, the cost for what we are doing collect this bit of data, what it also shows is that along with your next point that the security hasn't done a good job checking fares and monitoring the safety of the system. The development issues are precisely why there will be more problems if more of the system went from LRT to full on HRT because like DC outside the urban core, the Parking Structures are massive to support the ridership needed for the lines farther from the urban core or the densification would be intense to stimulate the demand. With LRT there's a scale that doesn't scare hell out of communities right away and can enable some to organically up-zone and densify. Personally I wish we adopted the following for the system if we were more fiscally conservative; 1) Had a distance based-zone fare structure (like the Commuter Express routes) so that if you're traveling a longer distance you should pay more, what that also does is place a capacity limit on how much service you put on(improving fare box recovery and reduces maintenance costs) and, 2) Adopted a San Diego Trolley style approach of building LRT in outlying areas such as the Gold Line to Pomona/Claremont (that is where I think the line should end). Unless you have demand for high frequency like under every 10 minutes, most of the line can be strategically single tracked and only have double tracks at key locations and at stations and operate effectively every 15 minutes this way we are not overbuilding for the sake of it. This is the way most Light Rail systems are build around the world, now lines like the Blue Line to Long Beach, Expo to Santa Monica, hell even the Gold Line to Pasadena has the demand to need higher frequency outside of that single track and be strategic about it. Having a RFP almost go out for subway cars is a lot different than being very close to replacing them. Could be another 5-6 years or more before we actually see any new cars. Good points on the single track for little used lines. I wonder how much this actually saves in construction and operating costs though.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 14, 2015 15:24:36 GMT -8
I haven't seen any statements on the Metro twitter feed, so I figured I'd ask if anyone here has a clue why Expo trains have been consistently arriving on the opposite platforms at Jefferson/La Cienega station since Friday.
I'm guessing there's an issue with one of the track switches that Metro hasn't had time to fix, since the trains switch back to the correct side after descending on their way to La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 14, 2015 20:15:23 GMT -8
I haven't seen any statements on the Metro twitter feed, so I figured I'd ask if anyone here has a clue why Expo trains have been consistently arriving on the opposite platforms at Jefferson/La Cienega station since Friday. I'm guessing there's an issue with one of the track switches that Metro hasn't had time to fix, since the trains switch back to the correct side after descending on their way to La Brea. Yes, this has been happening. There is something peculiar about the Culver City Station that the arriving train arrives only a minute after the departing train leaves. So, the trains use 11 minutes to dwell out of their 12-minute headway. This is particularly long and strange, as it often leads to delays if a train is on the wrong track. Therefore, it's not common for the arriving train to wait at La Cienega or the departing train to wait at Culver City because of the unusually long, 11-out-of-12-minutes dwell at Culver City. So, the La Cienega switching might simply be to overcome this timetable problem rather than a defective switch. If a train is on the wrong track and it looks like it will delay the operations, they may decide to use the La Cienega switch instead of the Culver City switch.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 15, 2015 13:15:08 GMT -8
Do Expo trains still go through the Culver City switch either dead ass slow or completely stop at it regardless of switching or not? I'm no expert, but as an infrequent user of "fast" segment of the line this is plain annoyingly slow.
|
|