|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 6, 2012 3:54:45 GMT -8
While staring at a Metro system map at a station recently, I pondered thus:
What if the Silver Line busway were to be converted into LRT as an El Monte-to-Gardena transit line? And what if the trains could use the Regional Connector to link the 10 Fwy and 110 Fwy sections?
Obviously the approach to Union Station would need to be modified, possibly as a link into the aerial structure north of the Gold Line Union Station platform from the east.
Linking to the Harbor Fwy Transitway would be simple, as the existing tracks are directly adjacent to it near Adams.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 6, 2012 8:18:42 GMT -8
I guess the obvious concern is capacity in the regional connector. Also, it seems less likely that Metro will rip out existing infrastructure to replace it with rail when there are competing expansion needs throughout the county.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 6, 2012 8:56:30 GMT -8
I guess the obvious concern is capacity in the regional connector. Also, it seems less likely that Metro will rip out existing infrastructure to replace it with rail when there are competing expansion needs throughout the county. Agreed. Plus, I doubt the ridership would increase very much. We may also be facing a situation at Union Station where new tracks may be needed. Once the Regional Conector is built, the station will serve only the Blue Line. Then the Santa Ana Line will be using it too. Then, (in the possible far future) the Silver Line LRT (San Gabriel to Hollywood) would have to be tied in as well. Then there's also the proposed Burbank/Glendale line, which would tie in at Chinatown station and stop at Union Station (though if this is connected with the Santa Ana Line, as I believe it should be, then this is not an issue). All of this also assumes that the Blue and Gold lines will only run as North-South lines, which will likely not be the case. Which means even more trains moving through Union Station. An underground, 4-track Union Station stop for LRT may be needed to accomodate all the additional service and traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Nov 6, 2012 10:09:02 GMT -8
i drive the 110 everyday
there is definitely room for rail but the problem is Adams had expo not been built the line could have been run up flower. but in all honesty the line works better as a bus line they just need to upgrade those stations and make them attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 7, 2012 0:06:44 GMT -8
Once the Regional Conector is built, the station will serve only the Blue Line. Then the Santa Ana Line will be using it too. Then, (in the possible far future) the Silver Line LRT (San Gabriel to Hollywood) would have to be tied in as well. If I remember correctly, the Silver Line is planned to run UNDER Union Station on Cesar Chavez ave and up Mission Rd. Of course it could also veer north onto the Gold Line ROW very briefly via an elevated viaduct, cross onto the UP ROW and THEN jump on Mission Rd. *side note: In the larger picture, i really think the window on running the Silver Line to El Monte and eventually La Puente has pretty much closed with the ACE project running full steam ahead. I think the ultimate goal should instead be to run it to the densely populated cities of Alhambra, Temple City and North El Monte on Main/Las Tunas. I'm not sure there's much need for a Burbank/Glendale corridor if the Yellow Line is built instead, as they serve basically the same population, only the latter would also run through underserved communities of Echo Park and Silver Lake before heading to Glendale. That would certainly open up a lot of opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 7, 2012 8:51:30 GMT -8
If I remember correctly, the Silver Line is planned to run UNDER Union Station on Cesar Chavez ave and up Mission Rd. According to the archived Silver Line website: Going east: From Union station, Silver Line would follow the Gold Line tracks northbound towards Chinatown, but would leave the flyover and instead cross the Los Angeles River, and continue eastbound paralleling the southern edge of the Alameda Corridor East freight tracks. Going west: The western portion of the Metro Silver Line starts at Union Station, which is shared with the Metro Gold Line. From Union Station, the Silver Line would follow the Gold Line tracks southbound out of the station and leave the Gold Line tracks by turning west on the north side of the 101 along Arcadia Street, and then north on Main Street. I'm not sure there's much need for a Burbank/Glendale corridor if the Yellow Line is built instead, as they serve basically the same population, only the latter would also run through underserved communities of Echo Park and Silver Lake before heading to Glendale. I would like the Yellow Line to be pursued first, but it also faces challenges in that some tunneling will likely be necessary (particularly Downtown to connect with the Regional Connector). The Burbank/Glendale corridor, aside from the junction needed to connect with Chinatown station, is less complicated, can be built entirely above ground, serves most of the same areas, and will be less expensive since it will run mostly along an existing ROW. I see both being equally useful and needed, but one in the near future (Burbank/Glendale) and one in the far future (Yellow Line). |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 7, 2012 11:50:16 GMT -8
Here is what I think... no, it will not be all that great to convert Silver Line to light rail, and especially if you shotgun the resulting trains into Regional Connector. First, let's consider the routing in relation to transit demand. Silver Line exists as a political project (Metro throwing a bone to transit riders for converting carpool lane to toll lane) and has very little natural ridership from end to end. It is actually 2 completely different corridors with uneven loads. The El Monte portion has higher ridership than the Harbor portion. Very little passengers ride it beyond Downtown in both directions. So what does this mean? It means that forcing this train to go thru Regional Connector won't bring any sort of real transit improvement. But it has great potential to make operating the other trains very difficult. Trains that we know will have very high thru-ridership from day one (i.e. West LA to East LA via Expo/Gold, Pasadena/SGV to Financial District via Gold/Blue). The second reason this is a bad idea has to do with the fact that this line will run in the middle of the freeway. We have learned from many previous mistakes that this is the worst place to put a light rail line. People hate freeway island stations and the isolated nature means the line will be cut off from the community it intends to serve. And lastly, such a rail line will duplicate the Blue Line through South LA. It becomes a question of is this a worthy investment? I would much rather see rail on Vermont Ave before we contemplate converting Silver Line BRT to rail. That being said... I'm not a total Debbie Downer  I think there are many things Metro can do to improve the Silver Line. For example, the bus (actually ALL buses) should have its own lane while operating in Downtown LA surface streets. Right now, Silver Line only has a limited exclusive lane on Figueroa north bound. That is woefully inadequate. Silver Line should have exclusive lanes in both directions while in Downtown. Another thing Metro can do to improve the overall experience is to enclose the freeway stations on the 110 so you don't go deaf while waiting for the next bus. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 7, 2012 16:05:14 GMT -8
All good points, bzcat.
As nice as it would be to convert our BRT lines to rail, there's just too many other projects that need attention and money.
What we should focus on is improving the infrastructure we already have. For starters, how about signal priority for the Orange Line? Maybe even some grade separations?
I think exclusive lanes for the Silver Line in downtown is another great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 8, 2012 0:35:17 GMT -8
CALM DOWN FOLKS!
I was by no means advocating for an actual Silver Line LRT conversion, just bringing up a hypothetical scenario...
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 8, 2012 4:53:26 GMT -8
(Metro throwing a bone to transit riders for converting carpool lane to toll lane) You're being too generous. I, for one, had memories of what there was before. I'm sure others did/do as well. We had 400-series buses go long distances and serve downtown L.A. Now those routes terminate in Harbor Gateway or El Monte as local lines, and what had been a one-seat ride is now two, with hard-to-time transfers. Metro's never explained the operational rationale behind the Silver Line. I've had to come up with my own theory. Someone in counsel said Metro has to fastidiously adhere to the law that says toll lane revenues must be spent literally over-the-road on the freeways. So the Silver Line was created to avoid the problem of the local part of a 400-line getting misappropriated toll lane subsidies. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 8, 2012 10:41:50 GMT -8
Wad, I don't think the issue has anything to do with toll lane revenue being used on local bus. As part of the deal to convert the lanes, some funds for allocated for transit improvement in the corridor.
The original Metro proposal for Silver Line was to replace most of the 400 series buses that had zone charges with 1 single BRT that would charge regular fare (i.e. $1.50 like Orange Line). This would have been a real improvement. However, Foothill Transit threatened to sue Metro and block the toll lane because it said Metro was undercutting its Silverstreak service. So at the end, Metro agreed to keep the freeway zone charge so the toll lane project can go forward. The "improvements" were sacrificed to the turf war gods.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 18, 2012 23:04:02 GMT -8
Metro's never explained the operational rationale behind the Silver Line. I've had to come up with my own theory. Someone in counsel said Metro has to fastidiously adhere to the law that says toll lane revenues must be spent literally over-the-road on the freeways. So the Silver Line was created to avoid the problem of the local part of a 400-line getting misappropriated toll lane subsidies. I thought the explanations were: 1) reduce duplicative service downtown, 2) Allow thru-routing, 3) Improving branding, 4) Simplify the service to make it easier to remember and use. The old system duplicated the route thru downtown, the slowest and and most expensive part. Now there are supposedly plans to get signal priority for the "Silver Line" Buses, better but wider-space stops downtown, and at one time there were supposed to be bus-only lanes along parts of the route Downtown. The thru-routing would make to possible to take trips from Cal State LA or El Monte to South LA, for example, without having to transfer, and it helps simplify the map. The "Silver line" fits in with the BRT branding for the Orange Line and the rail lines. And the route is much easier to understand than the 400 series buses that used to go from San Pedro and the Harbor to downtown. Was it worth it to give up the one-seat rides? I'm not sure. Perhaps Metro could thru-route some of the Silver Line buses all the way to San Pedro? |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 19, 2012 2:44:41 GMT -8
I think revenue from the new toll lanes should go toward studying the feasibility of a Red Line extension down Vermont as an L.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 19, 2012 18:10:30 GMT -8
I think revenue from the new toll lanes should go toward studying the feasibility of a Red Line extension down Vermont as an L. No room for an elevated line on Vermont until you get down past Gage. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 19, 2012 22:58:52 GMT -8
I think revenue from the new toll lanes should go toward studying the feasibility of a Red Line extension down Vermont as an L. No room for an elevated line on Vermont until you get down past Gage. I know. My point is that Vermont Ave should lie within the 110 "corridor" boundaries, and thus a subway extension down Vermont should qualify for the toll revenue, in the same way a rail line down Valley or Garvey would get money from revenues due to being in the 10 "corridor" boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 21, 2012 3:47:46 GMT -8
I know. My point is that Vermont Ave should lie within the 110 "corridor" boundaries, and thus a subway extension down Vermont should qualify for the toll revenue, in the same way a rail line down Valley or Garvey would get money from revenues due to being in the 10 "corridor" boundaries. Does anyone know what the legal restrictions on the use of toll money are? I've read speculation that it could be spent on additional bus service that directly used the 10/110, but I don't know what the geographical limits of the corridor are (e.g. whether Vermont is included). |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 21, 2012 11:07:09 GMT -8
I know. My point is that Vermont Ave should lie within the 110 "corridor" boundaries, and thus a subway extension down Vermont should qualify for the toll revenue, in the same way a rail line down Valley or Garvey would get money from revenues due to being in the 10 "corridor" boundaries. Does anyone know what the legal restrictions on the use of toll money are? I've read speculation that it could be spent on additional bus service that directly used the 10/110, but I don't know what the geographical limits of the corridor are (e.g. whether Vermont is included). Since it is only a one year demonstration project, they can't commit to anything else. Not sure about the legal wording about what constitutes corridor. Right now it will just be the Silver Line for the most part. Going forward, I'd like to see some double tracking on the San Bernardino Metrolink Line if possible. They really need to advertise what gets funded by the tolls as we go through this so people realize the benefits and don't just think the gubmint is out to get them. Of course, we have to get past the one year. Right now, a lot of people are upset because they think traffic is worse. I find it doubtful that a bunch of carpoolers suddenly gave up their carpools to go solo so I wonder if the signage is creating some congestion. People that truly carpool and just don't have their kid in the passenger seat once a month are going to get the transponder in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Nov 26, 2012 21:45:57 GMT -8
The Harbor Fwy carpool bus lane was built to be converted to rail at some point in the future. It was built in the mid 80's don't know if it was for light rail or heavy rail. Don't remember if it was ever said. The structures were built to handle the weight. Check the L A Times for the history.
|
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Nov 27, 2012 7:47:09 GMT -8
The Harbor Fwy carpool bus lane was built to be converted to rail at some point in the future. It was built in the mid 80's don't know if it was for light rail or heavy rail. Don't remember if it was ever said. The structures were built to handle the weight. Check the L A Times for the history. Probably only light rail. While the planning probably took place in the 80s (most likely late 80s), construction on the Transitway began in 1991. It opened in 1996 or 1997, IIRC. |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 27, 2012 10:11:42 GMT -8
I argue that the Silver Line greatly increased ridership on the Harbor transitway. I didn't even use the transitway until the Silver Line came online because the service become much more straight forward. I would often rather take the blue line than figure out which of the gazillion different 400 series went where. Now, I actually see people standing at the Harbor transitway stations.
I think the Silver Line greatly increased the usability of what was a disaster of a transit corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 6, 2012 15:22:41 GMT -8
If I remember correctly, this transit way originally designed to go into west DTLA with an exit/entrance on Wilshire Bl. but it was 'put in hiatus" after the Loma Prieta quake of 89 for fears of the transit way collapsing in on itself like that freeway did in the Bay Area. It's 23 years later. Has our technology not improved enough to keep that from happening now?
|
|
