|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jan 24, 2013 8:10:46 GMT -8
With the Blue Line becoming more and more crowded, and with what seems to be a majority of riders going to Long Beach, is anyone aware of plans to add express tracks to the Blue Line? This would allow "express" or "limited" stop trains to skip some or all stations between Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Considering the ROW used to be a 4 track main, the space for bypass tracks is probably there. Additional tracks would not need to be contiguous, but could be added in sections to allow bypass of certain stations. It could even be added piecemeal as funds allow.
It seems like a straightforward and inexpensive way to add capacity to the Blue Line but I have never heard anyone mention such a thing. Has anyone else? Does anyone have ideas on feasibility?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 24, 2013 11:16:45 GMT -8
With the Blue Line becoming more and more crowded, and with what seems to be a majority of riders going to Long Beach, is anyone aware of plans to add express tracks to the Blue Line? This would allow "express" trains to skip some or all stations between Los Angeles and Long Beach. Considering the ROW used to be a 4 track main, the space for bypass tracks is probably there. Additional tracks would not need to be contiguous, but could be added in sections to allow bypass of certain stations. It could even be added piecemeal as funds allow. It seems like a straightforward and inexpensive way to add capacity to the Blue Line but I have never heard anyone mention such a thing. Has anyone else? Does anyone have ideas on feasibility? The other two tracks are UP freight tracks and used as a backup for the Alameda Corridor. Therefore, Metrolink service would be more appropriate on those tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 24, 2013 16:43:13 GMT -8
With the Blue Line becoming more and more crowded, and with what seems to be a majority of riders going to Long Beach, is anyone aware of plans to add express tracks to the Blue Line? This would allow "express" trains to skip some or all stations between Los Angeles and Long Beach. Considering the ROW used to be a 4 track main, the space for bypass tracks is probably there. Additional tracks would not need to be contiguous, but could be added in sections to allow bypass of certain stations. It could even be added piecemeal as funds allow. It seems like a straightforward and inexpensive way to add capacity to the Blue Line but I have never heard anyone mention such a thing. Has anyone else? Does anyone have ideas on feasibility? Another ability is the West Santa Ana Corridor which is another North-Soutn alignment that will relieve demand from the Blue Line from Downtown to the Green Line where the Blue Line is at its heaviest boarding area |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 24, 2013 16:52:18 GMT -8
This was discussed a lot on the old forum. Probably because half the lines that we have now didn't exist so the blue line was a more popular topic. ;D
It's something that Metro has considered, although not in any serious way that I'm aware of. Personally I'd rather have a parallel NW line down Vermont. The part of the blue line where the tracks are isn't the slow part. It's already "express" compared to almost any other metro. Maybe bypassing the slow part by extending the blue line to Little Tokyo (and creating a circle line) would benefit some.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 24, 2013 21:52:22 GMT -8
Another ability is the West Santa Ana Corridor which is another North-Soutn alignment that will relieve demand from the Blue Line from Downtown to the Green Line where the Blue Line is at its heaviest boarding area It's like that same old saying people saying "building more traffic lanes will reduce traffic". When the I-210 was extended further east, it made more people use the I-210 because there was more destinations that can be easily reached. Once this new West santa Ana Corridor line is built, it's just going to increase demand on the Blue Line, not decrease it. Look at the Expo Line, it's a network effect, the Blue Line is nearing 100,000 daily riders thanks to the Expo Line. Yes, it serves a different area, but it brings more convenience to rail riders. So the Santa Ana branch will not relieve congestion................it will make the Blue Line more congested. Guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jan 24, 2013 22:44:06 GMT -8
This was discussed a lot on the old forum. Probably because half the lines that we have now didn't exist so the blue line was a more popular topic. ;D It's something that Metro has considered, although not in any serious way that I'm aware of. Personally I'd rather have a parallel NW line down Vermont. The part of the blue line where the tracks are isn't the slow part. It's already "express" compared to almost any other metro. Maybe bypassing the slow part by extending the blue line to Little Tokyo (and creating a circle line) would benefit some. I agree, compared to systems like NYC or Chicago, the Blue Line is already express fast. The Green Line is like a bullet train in comparison to an NYC local train. Overall, I don't think the time saved would be worth the investment. As previously mentioned, the money would better spent towards a new line down Vermont. Flower is definitely the bottleneck that is slowing the Blue and Expo Lines. From my observation, somewhere like 30-40% of the total time from 7th street to Culver City is 7th street to USC. Long Beach section is also pretty slow. Packed 3 car trains at rush hour having to stop at several traffic lights just for a maybe 2 or 3 cars to cross the tracks.  |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 25, 2013 11:20:27 GMT -8
Another ability is the West Santa Ana Corridor which is another North-Soutn alignment that will relieve demand from the Blue Line from Downtown to the Green Line where the Blue Line is at its heaviest boarding area It's like that same old saying people saying "building more traffic lanes will reduce traffic". When the I-210 was extended further east, it made more people use the I-210 because there was more destinations that can be easily reached. Once this new West santa Ana Corridor line is built, it's just going to increase demand on the Blue Line, not decrease it. Look at the Expo Line, it's a network effect, the Blue Line is nearing 100,000 daily riders thanks to the Expo Line. Yes, it serves a different area, but it brings more convenience to rail riders. So the Santa Ana branch will not relieve congestion................it will make the Blue Line more congested. Guaranteed. I know all about network effect, which is why you need another north-south line in the general South Eastern portion of the county that will relieve the demand from Downtown to the Green Line off the Blue Line. West Santa Ana Corridor is the one so far that is the planning process and has some funding under Measure R there are other potential corridors like Vermont or even something down Broadway. It's the same reason for building the Regional Connector which will shift ridership from the Red-Purple line from Union Station to 7th St to free up capacity one corridor to another corridor so it can then be utilized for the Westwood extension. Yes the line will eventually get full again however even if you were to put the express tracks or do all the grade separation, you will still need parallel lines to relieve demands so this will be needed anyway. So for that Blue Line if there's another rail corridor that links the Downtown and Green Line that will help free up that demand from that only north-south link between Downtown and the Green Line which that the bulk of the capacity crush is coming from. Once riding south on the Blue Line from Willowbrook station, ridership demands drop significantly. The Express tracks are a nice idea but then how do they enter into Downtown so that it does the capacity relief its sets out to do. Transit Networks and Highway Networks are completely different animals so that argument is not strong because transit has filters such as fare pricing or subsidies compared to freeways and highways which inflates demands |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 28, 2013 20:10:52 GMT -8
Totally love all this! Let the two cents begin:
So the central issue is whether or not to relieve congestion on the Blue Line and how. The choices are: Metrolink Service (express) on the freight tracks or parallel service on a nearby main thoroughfare with LRT or possibly HRT. Next: where are these people coming in from OC/LB going to? DTLA, the Wilshire District/classic Westside, Hollywood, or Pasadena/Glendale? This could mean the difference between developing the Vermont Corridor or Pacific/Long Beach Bl. through Lynwood, Southgate, Unincorporated Walnut Park, Huntington Park, and Vernon.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 29, 2013 6:59:48 GMT -8
I live in Silverlake, so I see the need on Vermont or Western. Either choice will need to be underground, and Vermont is a shorter distance. Both would require two transfers so LRT or HRT makes little difference in my opinion. My vote is Vermont ave.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 29, 2013 10:39:34 GMT -8
My preference is to build more rail lines before we tinker with the existing one to add different service modes. A Vermont or Santa Ana branch is going to add more overall riders to the system than a Blue line express.
The express is a good idea... I'm not saying it has no merit. Just that given the alternatives, I prefer parallel lines over express tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 30, 2013 8:51:26 GMT -8
Believe me, I would love to skip stops on the long stretch to Long Beach.
But I think the line would be improved most if the street running on Washington and Flower were replaced with an elevated trackway.
I look forward to Metro fixing the junction at Washington/Flower, so that trains can head through at a decent speed. I'm hopeful that this will cure a few of the Blue Line's issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jan 30, 2013 11:25:42 GMT -8
Sadly, because of I-10, Flower HAS to be a subway. You could elevate Washington, but then again Washington, with it's Signal optimizations, isn't the problematic section. The money spent of elevating Washington would be better spent going towards a Flower subway, or at the very least putting the junction underground.(Whoever thought it was a good idea to put a junction of two busy LRT lines in pretty much the middle of a busy intersection is one of biggest mysteries of Metro Rail.)
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 30, 2013 19:12:56 GMT -8
The wye is going to live in infamy even after it's fixed. If Metro knew then of the headache this wye was causing now, maybe they would have chosen to develop the Expo ROW a mile or so east of Figueroa St. so that it could have turned north onto San Pedro Street and into the Garment District. Of course, this configuration would have thrown off the purpose of the Connector creating through running north-south and east-west lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 30, 2013 22:03:39 GMT -8
Just to add a correction the "infamous" Flower and Washington junctions is not a "wye", it's just a pair of diverging tracks. A wye would have tracks going from Washington to Expo (west to south, and north to east). This would add even more complication--four more switches. Wyes are usually used for lines with single-ended cars and were common on branch line railroads in the days of steam engines, San Francisco Muni used to have one at the end of the M-line, in a relatively low-traffic area. They make it possible to turn a car or engine around without building a loop or installing a turntable.
|
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Feb 1, 2013 9:51:50 GMT -8
Just to add a correction the "infamous" Flower and Washington junctions is not a "wye", it's just a pair of diverging tracks. A wye would have tracks going from Washington to Expo (west to south, and north to east). This would add even more complication--four more switches. Wyes are usually used for lines with single-ended cars and were common on branch line railroads in the days of steam engines, San Francisco Muni used to have one at the end of the M-line, in a relatively low-traffic area. They make it possible to turn a car or engine around without building a loop or installing a turntable. Bringing it back local, didn't LARy have some wyes (especially near the end when they only had single-ended PCCs)? Trying to remember... I think the P had one at Rowan and Dozier. The J may have had one at Jefferson/10th Av. Possibly the R at Whittier/Brannick and the V at L. A. City College. I'm fairly confident about the V, the others were all on off-street locations, so they could have been loops. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 3, 2013 21:37:09 GMT -8
On the PER Historical Society web page, there's a lot of great pics that show tracks crossing over tracks as well as switches. It appears the J Line had a loop on both ends. The R Line appears to have had a switch at the Brannick loop. I'm under the impression that since the J Line was among the last of the street cars lines to get decommissioned, that it was also among the more successful lines. I had always pictured Pacific/Long Beach Bl. being used again as part of a line that was routed into Alhambra through Boyle Heights and El Sereno to link these communities and those along Pacific/Long Beach Bl. However, with the advent of the WSAB, this may no longer be the best use of resources. Plus, I'm pretty sure "good intention" is not a qualifying factor in planning these lines.
I say Metro should just keep adding lines until a 4-line main makes sense again for regular, limited, express, and perhaps even local (every ½ mile) service.
|
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Feb 4, 2013 22:43:49 GMT -8
The V line had a Y at Munroe Street. It was a relatively recent addition as PCCs came to the line in the late 1950s. The S had a loop at its west end (8th & Western) - another late addition. The west end of the R line on 3rd had a Y - actually a double Y as its tail tracks had originally had been part of a private right of way. The system was littered with other Ys - e.g. Pico and Vermont - actually half of a grand crossing or 7th and Vermont.
|
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Feb 5, 2013 20:19:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 15, 2013 15:22:28 GMT -8
Believe me, I would love to skip stops on the long stretch to Long Beach. But I think the line would be improved most if the street running on Washington and Flower were replaced with an elevated trackway. I look forward to Metro fixing the junction at Washington/Flower, so that trains can head through at a decent speed. I'm hopeful that this will cure a few of the Blue Line's issues. The chokepoint is not the surface running it's the inability for operators and dispatchers to turn the trains back quickly at 7th Street Metro Center the best chance of this occuring will be when the Regional Connector opens in 5-6 years or hopefully in an upcoming budget have more support staff and coordination to enable trains to quickly unload passengers and trains in and out of 7th Street during rush hours. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 18, 2013 9:51:53 GMT -8
The "new" (rebranded) Silver Line has shown impressive ridership growth this year, admittedly from a very poor baseline, because it does make a reasonable alternative for people who would otherwise be transferring to the Blue Line from the western half of South LA.
Already Google Maps suggests you transfer to the Silver Line for trips to Metro Center from near Slauson, Manchester or Imperial Highway (or the Green line) west of the Silver Line. The problem is the lack of stops; with stops only every 2 miles thru South LA, the majority of areas are not within walking distance of a bus that would transfer to the Silver Line. It even lacks stops at Vernon and Florence, which both have very frequent bus service.
This suggests a problem with a limited-stop Blue Line (or Metrolink South) line: it would be hard to access for people in the middle of the route, where the blue line actually becomes crowded, between the Green Line and LA.
As someone who lived in Long Beach, I would have loved to have a faster option to LA, and I've previously posted how a Metrolink line could be constructed between Long Beach and LA. But the biggest need is for more traditional rapid transit lines, accessible by walking with stops every 1/2 mile or at least every mile.
Real BRT routes should be added on Vermont (754), Broadway (745), and Long Beach Blvd (760), and perhaps Western (757), with bus-only lanes, off-board payment and better signal priority, giving faster and more reliable trips. Many people in South LA would chose to ride these buses to their destination or transfer to Expo or the Purple Line, instead of taking an east-west bus to the Blue Line.
The Silver Line would better relieve the Blue Line if it were actually LESS limited-stop. Adding stops at Century, Vernon, Florence and MLK would add 5 minutes to the trip for people coming from San Pedro, but it would triple the number of people in South LA who could access the line, and would likely double Silver Line ridership in the southern half of the line.
If the Silver Line became sufficiently popular to support very frequent service, some buses could make the current stops (every 2 miles) or even few stops (though I would brand them as express buses), while the official "Silver Line" buses could stop every 1/2 mile or 1 mile to provide more access.
This would require spending more money on new stations, but Metro loves building stuff and could use the new "Express Lanes" as an excuse to get money for the improvements. They could add some sound walls at the same time, to cut down the freeway noise at the stations.
If after all these improvements, and after building the Santa Ana corridor light rail and a Vermont rail line, there is still crowding on the Blue Line, it would make sense to buy or rent the freight right of way and run "Metrolink" trains from Long Beach to LA Union Station (via the tracks along the bank of the LA River), as a faster service for trips all the way from Long Beach to LA, and from important intermediate stations like the Green Line, or for people who are trying to get to Union Station instead of the heart of Downtown
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 20, 2013 15:02:15 GMT -8
jeisenbe's post makes a lot of sense... I suppose there is a fair amount of people in South LA and Southeast LA County that are taking East-West buses to the Blue Line (or Silver Line) and going towards Downtown LA (and points beyond). If the Rapid buses on Vermont/Western/Broadway/Long Beach Blvd are upgraded to BRT standards like the Wilshire BRT project, some people may decide to transfer to the BRTs instead of Blue Line.
|
|
