|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 14, 2017 10:51:59 GMT -8
Looks like our prayers are in the process of being answered with regards to Metro's two busiest light rail lines convergence in downtown and speeding the already fast section the Blue Line. No mention of signal priority or preemption in the City of Long Beach. Curbed LAMetro Board Report 2017-0091
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 15, 2017 10:52:29 GMT -8
Elevated or underground on Washington and/or Flower.... We can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 15, 2017 12:41:32 GMT -8
Upgrading Blue line to 4 tracks will be a huge win for commuters.
Although wasn't Metro looking at building a viaduct over the Blue line ROW between Slaouson and Washington for the West Santa Ana Branch? This will be the same thing but just extended further south to 710 freeway.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 15, 2017 13:06:48 GMT -8
Maybe the grade separated option under Long Beach Bl. to Olympic Bl. can be thoroughly explored now. As far as the express service is concerned, I know many of us have mentioned using the adjacent freight tracks for years. I'm glad someone at Metro was listening. As far as Long Beach is concerned, I just know about them half the time. They commissioned a limited Streetcar feasibility study and it was never followed up. They contributed to the Long Term Transportation Plan Supplement #1 by suggesting an extension to CSU Long Beach off the Blue Line, but I'm not sure Metro has taken that suggestion or any of the other suggestions in the Supplement to heart. So the Long Beach city council may be waiting to hear from Metro or has made a conscious decision to live with mediocrity. A streetcar line to CSU Long Beach was mentioned in their feasibility study.
The WSAB/PEROW viaduct has really infuriated me. I get it, it's supposed to allow each line to operate with it's own headways without interference from the other line. However, do we really have such little faith in our system that we cannot allow multiple lines to share track and stations efficiently? Can we never succeed in that endeavor or has the switch debacle at Flower/Washington soured our outlook on future track/station sharing?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 15, 2017 15:09:15 GMT -8
One alternative is to elevate the track on Flower from Pico to 23rd, and on Washington from Flower to Maple. The track would have to go over the 10 Freeway. A new Blue Line LATTC station would need to be built on the elevated guideway. The transitions (from grade-level to elevated) would be: - on Flower from Pico to Venice
- on Flower from 23rd to Washington
- on Washington from Maple to Los Angeles.
Each of these stretches is long enough for the rise (I think) and would not require any closure of cross streets. The track would not cross the freeway on-ramp at 18th/Flower because it would go way over it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 15, 2017 15:29:32 GMT -8
Another alternative is to create a flying junction on Flower between 18th and Washington. Looking south from 18th/Flower, the Blue Line tracks would separate from the Expo Line tracks, to the outside of the Expo tracks. They would then rise up to an elevated station at Washington/Grand, with the southbound Blue Line track "flying over" the Expo tracks. This would allow higher speeds at the junction (1) by removing the danger of oncoming trains crossing, and (2) by moving the junction away from the major, busy intersection at Flower/Washington.
This would be much easier and cheaper than the fully-elevated approach I described earlier. Unfortunately, it would leave in place the crossing of the on-ramp at 18th Street.
Either way, something has to be done at the Washington/Flower junction. It is NOT working. It slows down the commute in both directions for the majority of people who ride the Blue and Expo Lines.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Feb 16, 2017 1:16:55 GMT -8
I have a vague memory of a proposal some time ago for four tracks from about Olympic to Watts with the center tracks being for express service and the outside tracks being for local service. I'm not sure, but I think the guy who proposed it was named Henry Huntington.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 16, 2017 11:06:19 GMT -8
Henry Huntington is rolling over in his grave...laughing hysterically!
What's with all the fly overs and in DTLA no less. Except for the streetcar, there should be some kind of moratorium to grade separate any and all future rail transit lines, their extensions, and spurs below street level in the Down Town area, or the area that falls between Alameda St., the 101 frwy, 110 frwy, and Washington Bl. It's one thing to build fly overs on the outskirts of town and beyond, but really, who needs these eyesores in DTLA.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 16, 2017 12:52:17 GMT -8
The grade separations of Flower on the highly trafficked section between the Washington/Flower junction is huge. I'm thinking the best way to minimize service disruption, preserve the most existing stations would be to consider building an aerial shoofly directly over Flower Street, Here's how it could work, elevated tracks start 1000 feet south of Pico station for the installation of the transition ramp, the elevated tracks end about 1000 feet short of 23rd Street station on Flower for the southern transition ramp, Washington station will have to be taken out for a transition ramp and a temporary station would be constructed on Washington east between Hill and Broadway, if the block is long enough. The new Washington station could be built on the aerial section above Flower to be serviced by both Blue and Expo or reconstructed on on the new transition ramp (similar to how Expo Park/USC station is built) in its original location serviced only by the Blue Line. I think the above is a solution that meets near the exact parameters of what the report calls for to study and hopefully implement with minimal disruption considering trains could run normally as the parallel elevated structure will operate. It's anybody's guess if the high rises and low rise building owners and residents would welcome this new elevated structure running trains very 45-90 seconds. Flipside: Flower Street could be restored to more one way traffic lanes to the freeway or a linear park could be created where the at-grade tracks used to be, which would be a big plus.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 16, 2017 13:19:32 GMT -8
I have a vague memory of a proposal some time ago for four tracks from about Olympic to Watts with the center tracks being for express service and the outside tracks being for local service. I'm not sure, but I think the guy who proposed it was named Henry Huntington. I like this idea because it makes cross platform transfers from express service to local service simple, New York Subway uses this layout by the way. A method this could be implemented is to upgrade the existing Blue Line to be the express tracks with added grade separations first, then next build the outer local platforms and tracks second while also adding mezzanines where possible/necessary, then lastly demolish the disused local platforms on the now express tracks of the Blue Line. To my eye, this seems most logistically plausible to get the best layout, least disruption, and most effective cost should this be attempted. BTW: Hoyt–Schermerhorn station was the only good picture I could find, I know that it's underground but the layout remains the same—in reality express/local shared stations on Blue Line with outer local-inner express layout would look more like NYCT's New Utrecht Avenue/62nd Street elevated station.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 17, 2017 1:04:31 GMT -8
I find the pic of the elevated wye pleasing, majestic, and provocative. It's engineering at its best. Still, what's wrong with putting it all under ground? As DTLA continues to add buildings and block out the sun, NOT blocking out the sky is going to become a big deal. We can block out the sun light with buildings and be OK because we'd know to expect that. However, do we have to block out the sky too with these elevated structures?
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 17, 2017 7:45:29 GMT -8
I find the pic of the elevated wye pleasing, majestic, and provocative. It's engineering at its best. Still, what's wrong with putting it all under ground? As DTLA continues to add buildings and block out the sun, NOT blocking out the sky is going to become a big deal. We can block out the sun light with buildings and be OK because we'd know to expect that. However, do we have to block out the sky too with these elevated structures? Paging Elon Musk - we need some reasonably priced tunneling here!!!
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 17, 2017 13:20:46 GMT -8
I find the pic of the elevated wye pleasing, majestic, and provocative. It's engineering at its best. Still, what's wrong with putting it all under ground? As DTLA continues to add buildings and block out the sun, NOT blocking out the sky is going to become a big deal. We can block out the sun light with buildings and be OK because we'd know to expect that. However, do we have to block out the sky too with these elevated structures? Practically speaking, building underground rail in this country is expensive ($300M/mile or more) and disruptive to existing trains, traffic, and pedestrians for a longer period of time than aerial rail. Also, it might be me, but I don't go downtown to sunbathe unless it's at a rooftop pool.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Feb 17, 2017 14:13:58 GMT -8
Another option are the side merges common in Chicago, BART, DC, and elsewhere. Here is an example in Chicago: goo.gl/maps/7pce3TLhhFK2The Expo line could be smoothly sunk below grade in the block between 23rd and Washington, and then raised back up and merged between Venice and Pico. I'm just eye-balling it on Google Maps, but Flower in this section looks to have good deal of unused buffer space that may be able to house the quick 4 track wide transition. I guess if you are going to disconnect both lines from 7th and Metro and beyond for months if not years and tunnel this section, you might as well sink the Pico station too and do this whole transition underground, like it will be done at the Little Tokyo station, although that will easily double or triple the cost. Hey its all fantasy at this point anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Feb 17, 2017 15:27:46 GMT -8
This needs to be underground. Period.
I would recommend shifting the Pico station and tunnel alignment one block west underneath Figueroa, giving riders easier access to Staples Center, LA Live, and LACC. The tunnels would then arc back to the east and link up with the existing tracks leading to the current 7th Street/Metro Center. This should be possible to construct because the trains don't begin their ascent immediately upon leaving the station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 18, 2017 12:17:15 GMT -8
Here's the key issues with the joint operation most of which has nothing to do with the junction;
1) Operators aren't turning trains fast enough at 7th Street Metro Center terminal. A key staff member at Metro indicated that the operational approach when they separated the lines instead of interlining the operations, eliminated the flexibility and quickness of turning back these trains because each line has a different set of operators and with the 6 minute headways of Expo Line this has compounded the problem. One going back to the interlined operations will help immensely as this will speed the turning back of trains. Longer term in 2020 the Regional Connector or at minimum the pocket tracks and new cut and cover tunnel on Flower Street will help the turn around problem as trains move through and don't get stuck. The Red/Purple Line has routine delays of service at Union Station at rush hour because of this same exact problem and the whole line is underground, that solution is widening the turnback tunnel in preparation of the Purple Line extension.
2) The signal delay for cars turning left onto 18th Street & 10 East on-ramp signals that is where the back up occurs. Closing that on-ramp and prohibiting left turns on to 18th Street from Flower will improve reliability immensely because now trains only have to deal with one signal 18th Street rather than two 18th Street and the 10 East on ramp. This not only helps the trains it helps move Flower Street more effectively because that bottleneck is removed.
3) Reliability of the Siemens trains that routinely get stuck in the tunnel and cause most of the back ups and delays, Newer trains and mid-life rehab of these trains will help with that reliability.
4) The delays through Long Beach are because of no signal preemption and/or priority enabling minor streets to hold the trains. The signal preemption and priority will improve by the service by 3-5 minutes alone. If they eliminated the Loop with a more streamlined route like two ways down Long Beach Blvd and terminal station maybe even an extension to the LB Convention Center/Shoreline Village and Pike that would also improve the operation of the trains and speed up an additional 2-3 minutes because the route operations are much simpler. If there is any crossing that needs separation in Long Beach, it is Willow Street. It's the busier station and the spot where there's multiple signals in a short distance, one for crossing Long Beach Blvd and the other at Willow Street about 500' away.
5) With the express service idea because most of my friends who used to ride the Blue Line at my home station Wardlow now drive their cars and park and ride on the Silver Line because it is a slightly faster and more pleasant trip even though it is a higher fare.
With that in mind, I think a Metrolink extension from Downtown Union Station to Del Amo Station should be considered here as well. The bulk of the Blue Line ridership drops off to serve these potential riders after Del Amo Station during the peak period because of the large parking facility. This would be faster to implement and serve more customers and because most of the Blue Line from Del Amo to Washington has freight trains running parallel through it on a daily basis (one to three trains a day) this is a perfect service extension that can serve a larger regional benefit to riders. If a track is converted for the light rail to operate on a dedicated express track, this would actually add more delays and operational headaches to the shared Expo/Blue line even if the line is underground because now more trains are running through an already constrained alignment. So using Metrolink is a good way to add another entry to Downtown LA.
If the express tracks were combined with the Eco Rapid Corridor serving a new route into Downtown LA that would provide the needed relief and added capacity into Downtown LA.
Don't get me wrong, I think the junction and new underground station for Pico/Staples Center/Convention Center is needed however this needs to be thought of more comprehensively as an extension of the Flower Street tunnel from Convention Center all the way to Jefferson/USC with a re-configuring of the Blue Line on Washington Blvd using the eastern portion of the Expo Right of Way with new bridges and underpasses in that area will be cheaper and serve more riders and get more Federal/State grants, not just the piece meal approach that the Metro motion presents itself in.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 23, 2017 16:33:27 GMT -8
Speaking of upgrades, Metro seems to have realized that the Blue Line needs enforcement upgrades as well as service upgrades.
See this article on TheSource. It describes comprehensive changes to Blue Line operations and security to reverse declining satisfaction from Blue Line riders.
Specifically about security, the article says:
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 23, 2017 18:29:59 GMT -8
Specifically about security, the article says:
I like this. The raucousness is just unpleasant. Like the Brits say, "please keep yourself to yourself". Thumbs up, Metro.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 24, 2017 12:12:37 GMT -8
Metro's own numbers show that ridership is in decline, on-time arrivals (bus and rail) are down, crime is going up (Green Line, yikes!), cutting bus routes is not helping, and they are still surprised that ridership is going down?! Better late than never, they (CEO Washington) finally is going to do something about it. "Finally" barely begins to describe the exasperation that many daily riders, like myself, are feeling. Maybe one day I will start riding the Red Line after 8pm again or start visiting Belmont Shore in Long Beach again when they can start keeping schedule and have proper night service once more.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 24, 2017 14:26:06 GMT -8
Yeah since the BRU lawsuit settlement expired metro service has gone to shit across the board. Maybe we can get another lawsuit to make them operate properly again.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 24, 2017 15:57:06 GMT -8
The article did say that the Sheriff is reporting a crime drop on Metro from '15 to '16 (10%). Not to dispute the other things, though, they're true enough.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2017 7:59:03 GMT -8
With how slow the Flower Street section of the Blue Line has gotten, I've taken a new approach: get off at Grand/LATTC and transfer to the 14 bus into Downtown. Avoids the long-waiting train (12 minutes and up to travel two stops) and the transfer to the Red Line.
Supposedly, the Regional Connector will speed things up. Four years from now. Until then, a lot more people are going to stop riding the Blue Line.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 1, 2017 16:36:13 GMT -8
Has Metro ever explored redoing the switch at Washington/Flower to allow incoming Expo Line trains to divert east onto Washington Bl. and by the same token allow Blue Line trains to divert south on Flower St.? (A wye with a double switch?) I know, it sounds horrid and this would really test Metro's ability to handle LRT traffic, but if the tunnel is backed up that much/that often, wouldn't diverting every 3rd or 4th Expo Line and Blue Line train away from the tunnel help? A loop around DTLA could further help; and provided the Alameda options is chosen for the WSAB, it could happen.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Mar 2, 2017 6:52:41 GMT -8
Has Metro ever explored redoing the switch at Washington/Flower to allow incoming Expo Line trains to divert east onto Washington Bl. and by the same token allow Blue Line trains to divert south on Flower St.? (A wye with a double switch?) I know, it sounds horrid and this would really test Metro's ability to handle LRT traffic, but if the tunnel is backed up that much/that often, wouldn't diverting every 3rd or 4th Expo Line and Blue Line train away from the tunnel help? A loop around DTLA could further help; and provided the Alameda options is chosen for the WSAB, it could happen. Interesting proposal. Unfortunately, it seems to add such a connection, the building at the southeast corner of Flower and Washington would have to be torn down or truncated (see below): linkEven if that could be done, where would those Expo trains go? Washington? (there is a crossover just south of Washington, but to reverse there would hold up northbound Blue Line trains. The nearest suitable turnback point is all the way down at Imperial/Wilmington (Rosa Parks), where the trains could pull into the pocket track south of that station. But how many Expo passengers need to go south? I'm sure there are a few who right now transfer across the platform at Pico, but probably not a whole train's amount. Seems like this a problem which everyone is tuck with until the RC opens.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 2, 2017 15:50:02 GMT -8
Yea, I hadn't considered the radius or the arc needed for such a configuration; and L.A. Trade Tech would be loath in "modifying" the building to accommodate it. There is that spur across the street from Washington Station next to the Restaurant Depot. There's enough space for a secondary center platform (if such were necessary) and for four 3-car LRV's to layover. Speaking of which, wasn't Metro supposed to construct a LRV storage campus where the Restaurant Depot is now? Whatever happened to that? With the advent of Express Service and the WSAB converging and diverging in and around Washington Station, and the potential for a loop around DTLA, such a campus won't be an option but rather a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Mar 6, 2017 11:55:09 GMT -8
As transitfan notes, there is very little demand for transfers between the Long Beach and Santa Monica legs of these two LRT routes. I use the Pico station occasionally and I rarely see more than a couple of riders transferring from any single train. My guess is that fewer than 10 percent of passengers transfer at Pico. If you add the other passengers with destinations at Pico (also 10 percent of both Blue and Expo) the total demand for a Long Beach to Santa Monica route would be two trains per hour, at best. That type of headway (30 minutes) doesn't work for LRT.
|
|
|
Post by wheelman87 on Mar 16, 2017 8:09:15 GMT -8
To JerardWRight Feb 18 post, point 4: Why does the motion to study operational upgrades for the Blue Line www.metro.net/projects/blue-line-upgrades/including a capital-intensive express track (something I wondered about when the line was being rebuilt in the late 1980s), NOT include a discussion of signal pre-emption on LB Blvd? Have the board members not discussed this or does the City of LB oppose signal pre-emption?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 18, 2017 17:38:31 GMT -8
To JerardWRight Feb 18 post, point 4: Why does the motion to study operational upgrades for the Blue Line www.metro.net/projects/blue-line-upgrades/including a capital-intensive express track (something I wondered about when the line was being rebuilt in the late 1980s), NOT include a discussion of signal pre-emption on LB Blvd? Have the board members not discussed this or does the City of LB oppose signal pre-emption? Because in my honest opinion a new board member from the City of Long Beach, Mayor Robert Garcia doesn't want to actually do anything because this can be done without a Metro motion as they would save the most time savings for riders IN Long Beach as this is what the point of the Express Service.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 22, 2017 9:07:33 GMT -8
Something must have happened about 2-3 weeks ago, on the operations side. Suddenly, the Blue Line is more reliably on-time - both departing and arriving. I wonder what they tweaked.
At the same time, trains have been a lot less crowded. I haven't yet figured out if this is because (a) there was another dropoff in ridership, or (b) the trains are more consistently on time.
It could be that the increased security (officers are actually riding on trains now) scared off fare evaders, criminals and maybe the undocumented.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on May 9, 2017 15:54:08 GMT -8
|
|