saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on May 23, 2008 14:54:14 GMT -8
I posted this on the mta imagine blog in response to an mta post of freeways not being suitable for rail transit.(mta admin. took my post down, I'm posting it here because I would like to hear other points of view on this argument). I've heard many of them from different sides, but after years of discussion I still feel strongly that freeways are the only option. sincerely, Saadi Howell All the excuses I've heard regarding freeway medians not being a viable option for swift commuter rail transit are complete nonsense. Excuse 1. It's too expensive to buy adjacent real estate. We have no room to widen freeways. Counter 1. It is a myth that we cannot expand our freeways. We always seem to find a way to expand them when we want to add a carpool lane or add more freeway lanes. Adding more capacity for automobiles on the freeways is a sure fire way to overload our city streets and create more gridlock, unless the MTA has a brilliant idea on how to add capacity to all the city streets in mid town as well (maybe double decking sunset is an option). Excuse 2. If we have rail lines on freeways we'll have to have stations on freeways. Freeways are bad places for pedestrians because of noise, airborne dirt and pollution. Counter 2. Example Bay area BART in Walnut Creek, travels in the middle of freeway medians and either veers off the freeway to city centers for stations or has stations with plants or walls to shield riders from noise and pollution. Recommendations have been made years ago for the MTA to add sound walls to Gold Line and Green Line stations. This could be done easily to alleviate these concerns. The MTA has not gone and built these, so I'm lead to believe that this is not truly a major concern. Excuse 3. Freeway stations are generally not located close enough to major job centers or other destinations to be walkable. Counter 3. This is not true. There are job centers and areas of interest within walking distance of freeways. Most city centers are hugged by freeways because the job of the freeway is to quickly move people to these city centers without them having to do tons of driving on surface streets. Regardless of this fact, walkability is not a crucial quality for these types of lines. Lines that would benefit from being aligned with freeways are commuter rail lines not local lines. Commuter lines travel at faster speeds and will help people get to a region of interest quickly. Right now the MTA is having slower modes of transportation like bus and at grade light rail, do a job they are not good at...commuter rail. People do not want to ride the system unless they have to, because it does not QUICKLY take them to where they wanna go. I would be willing to ride metro from Pasadena where I live to Santa Monica where I work if it got me there QUICKLY. It wouldn't matter if I had to do 2 or 3 transfers (local bus to commuter rail to local light rail) to get to my destination, IF it got me there in 45 minutes or less. But this 1 to 2 hour commute on bus and light rail is just not gonna cut it. Close to 45 minute times from Pasadena to Santa Monica are not pie in the sky and could be completed IF lines like the ones I'm describing existed. There are only two major lines that are screaming to be created and both of them have major job centers within 2 blocks of the freeway. These lines would be commuter rail lines aka metrolink. Line 1 would be from Downtown LA to Santa Monica on the 10 freeway it would have a total of 4 maybe 5 stops. Expo is not gonna cut it for commuter rail. STOP 1. Downtown LA Union Station STOP 2. (maybe) La Brea only if there is the north/south metro line which people are talking bout. STOP 3. Robertson Culver City (studios and offices within 2 city blocks) STOP 4. Cloverfield Santa Monica (studios and offices within 2 city blocks, college within 6 blocks) STOP 5. 4th street santa monica civic center (civic center and promenade within 1 block) Line 2 would be from Sylmar to Irvine along the 405 Freeway and would have 10 stops. STOP 1. transfer station at 405 and antelope valley line crossing STOP 2. transfer station at 405 and ventura county line crossing STOP 3. Sherman Oaks (offices and mall within 2 city blocks) STOP 4. Westwood va/ucla (hospital, school, mall, offices, federal building within 2 city blocks) STOP 5. LAX (offices, hotels and airport within 6 city blocks) STOP 6. Long Beach Airport (airport within 2 city blocks) STOP 7. Huntington Beach Beach Blvd (offices and mall within 1 block) STOP 8. South Coast Plaza Costa Mesa (offices, hotels and 3 malls within 2 city blocks) STOP 9. John Wayne Airport/Irvine city center Irvine (offices, airport and hotels within 3 city blocks) STOP 10. Irvine Station Barranca Parkway Our mass transit solutions will never be adequate until fast commuter rail reaches the Western side of LA and Orange Counties. And for areas as dense as those the only option for fast completely grade separated commuter rail are our freeway medians. sincerely, Saadi Howell if you want to see a transit map I sent to MTA imagine it is at the web address www.bigday.la/transitmap_saadi_05.gif
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 23, 2008 20:33:29 GMT -8
There are only two major lines that are screaming to be created and both of them have major job centers within 2 blocks of the freeway. These lines would be commuter rail lines aka metrolink. Line 1 would be from Downtown LA to Santa Monica on the 10 freeway it would have a total of 4 maybe 5 stops. Expo is not gonna cut it for commuter rail. STOP 1. Downtown LA Union Station STOP 2. (maybe) La Brea only if there is the north/south metro line which people are talking bout. STOP 3. Robertson Culver City (studios and offices within 2 city blocks) STOP 4. Cloverfield Santa Monica (studios and offices within 2 city blocks, college within 6 blocks) STOP 5. 4th street santa monica civic center (civic center and promenade within 1 block) I wouldn't do the 10 freeway. Expo and then the Wilshire subway will better serve its corridor. Line 2 would be from Sylmar to Irvine along the 405 Freeway and would have 10 stops. STOP 1. transfer station at 405 and antelope valley line crossing STOP 2. transfer station at 405 and ventura county line crossing STOP 3. Sherman Oaks (offices and mall within 2 city blocks) STOP 4. Westwood va/ucla (hospital, school, mall, offices, federal building within 2 city blocks) STOP 5. LAX (offices, hotels and airport within 6 city blocks) STOP 6. Long Beach Airport (airport within 2 city blocks) STOP 7. Huntington Beach Beach Blvd (offices and mall within 1 block) STOP 8. South Coast Plaza Costa Mesa (offices, hotels and 3 malls within 2 city blocks) STOP 9. John Wayne Airport/Irvine city center Irvine (offices, airport and hotels within 3 city blocks) STOP 10. Irvine Station Barranca Parkway The 405 corridor, on the other hand, probably is the place to do the north-south line we need very badly. Don't know if the median (narrowed for HOV lanes along much of it) or one side shoulder would be better. I would leave the freeway right-of-way for better-located stations. My station list includes at least (I'd do closer than yours): Orange Line Ventura Blvd. Westwood / Wilshire Blvd. (likely NE corner of Veteran) Santa Monica Blvd. ? Expo Line / Pico Blvd. Venice Blvd. Howard Hughes Center / Fox Hills Mall / Jefferson Blvd. Manchester Blvd. ? LAX Do you then join the Green Line to the South Bay, continue along the 405, or both? I think in the near-term I'd use the Green Line connection east to Norwalk Metrolink to Orange County.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 23, 2008 21:05:51 GMT -8
The 405 in some stretches maybe the best option to do a local-regional express transit system along the same corridor because the diagonality of it in key stretches, high activity in local clusters (Valley, Westwood, LAX, South Bay, Huntington Beach/Golden West College, Irvine) and in some spots the long distances that are needed gain needed speed
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 23, 2008 21:08:17 GMT -8
All the excuses I've heard regarding freeway medians not being a viable option for swift commuter rail transit are complete nonsense. Excuse 1. It's too expensive to buy adjacent real estate. We have no room to widen freeways. Counter 1. It is a myth that we cannot expand our freeways. We always seem to find a way to expand them when we want to add a carpool lane or add more freeway lanes. Adding more capacity for automobiles on the freeways is a sure fire way to overload our city streets and create more gridlock, unless the MTA has a brilliant idea on how to add capacity to all the city streets in mid town as well (maybe double decking sunset is an option). Excuse 3. Freeway stations are generally not located close enough to major job centers or other destinations to be walkable. Counter 3. This is not true. There are job centers and areas of interest within walking distance of freeways. Most city centers are hugged by freeways because the job of the freeway is to quickly move people to these city centers without them having to do tons of driving on surface streets. Regardless of this fact, walkability is not a crucial quality for these types of lines. Lines that would benefit from being aligned with freeways are commuter rail lines not local lines. Commuter lines travel at faster speeds and will help people get to a region of interest quickly. Right now the MTA is having slower modes of transportation like bus and at grade light rail, do a job they are not good at...commuter rail. People do not want to ride the system unless they have to, because it does not QUICKLY take them to where they wanna go. I would be willing to ride metro from Pasadena where I live to Santa Monica where I work if it got me there QUICKLY. It wouldn't matter if I had to do 2 or 3 transfers (local bus to commuter rail to local light rail) to get to my destination, IF it got me there in 45 minutes or less. But this 1 to 2 hour commute on bus and light rail is just not gonna cut it. Close to 45 minute times from Pasadena to Santa Monica are not pie in the sky and could be completed IF lines like the ones I'm describing existed. Saadi, I agree that we need grade separated rail and speed is very important and that even a few minutes more means thousands of lost passengers. However, I disagree with several of your assertions. Rail on freeway medians would be extremely expensive, especially on the Santa Monica Freeway as the medians were converted to traffic lanes many years ago due to traffic congestion. Just a single lane expansion on the 405 through a mostly wilderness area is costing over $1B and generating a lot of community opposition due to taking a few homes and businesses. Putting rail on the 10 would require a huge expansion of the freeway to keep the same amount of lanes. You are probably looking at many many billions to do this and taking an enormous amount of housing and destroying quite a few neighborhoods, which are almost all minority. The lawsuits would likely take decades to resolve. Also, you confuse highway spending with public transit spending. In the good old USA, trains and public transit get crumbs compared to the highway budget. It has been this way for almost ever and won't likely change much with either party as much as I look forward to the DEMs completely in charge in Washington. Even in CA, the first thing that gets cut is public transit, even with the little that is currently funded. Finally, you state that freeway stations would be close enough to destinations. Actually, on the 10, very little is in walking distance to the freeway. While some people may walk as much as 1/2 mile, it is critical to get a lot of passengers to have stations within a 1000 feet. Your proposal completely misses major destinations like the Miracle Mile, Century City, downtown Beverly Hills, and the Brentwood/Wilshire office district, etc... even though it might serve you going to Santa Monica, assuming you work close enough to the freeway. The purple line expansion will have much higher ridership, will be just as fast as your proposal and will cost significantly less. If running on freeways were always the best, how come the Blue Line has twice the ridership of the Green Line even though in some cases it serves similar neighborhoods? I don't think the only reason is that Downtown LA and LB are the destinations on the Blue Line as there are many more passengers alighting in the interior stations as well.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on May 24, 2008 14:55:23 GMT -8
I don't believe expo will better serve this corridor as "commuter rail", for the primary reason of the SPEED that At Grade Light Rail goes. The stretch from downtown to santa monica is not most people's complete trip, so a line that takes 30 to 45 minutes to do this leg of a commute is to long when added to the rest of someone's commute. We need a commuter line that will shuttle people across the grid quickly, 15 minutes tops for this distance. Once people are close to their destination, that is where slower modes like At Grade Light Rail and bus's thrive. I believe a local line like Expo has value but it is primarily as a feeder line, and for travel within a region with distances of no more then 6 miles. If expo's final destination from culver city was switched to venice blvd and lincoln or venice blvd and abbott kinney it would be hitting areas of higher population density then the santa monica leg and compliment a true commuter rail line (like the grade separated one going down the 10) by feeding passengers into the culver city station. As for the Purple Line, that is grade separated and would lend itself to being a commuter rail line, IF there is double track in each direction so that there can be concurrent express service. I don't think that is in the MTA plan. A single tracked Purple Line will indeed be faster then the At Grade Expo but still leave commuters frustrated inching across the grid with some 20 stops. The Purple Line will also be serving an entirely different corridor then a commuter rail line going down the 10 freeway. Which would primarily function to serve people commuting on the 10 freeway between the outlying areas, downtown, culver city and santa monica business centers. There is enough traffic on the 10 freeway because of these commuters to validate a line like this. I've heard this excuse before, and addressed it. The MTA is the one in charge of adding carpool lanes. People always say there is never enough room or that it is too costly, but lanes are always added. So I don't believe adding a rail line down the middle of a freeway instead of an additional lane for traffic is all that different of a feat. If you can expand that freeway for a carpool lane you can surely expand it for a rail line. I think endlessly expanding freeway capacity creates two notable problems which are only gonna get worse. 1. you are allowing more cars on the road which is going to make inner grid traffic get worse and worse, unless as I posed before there is the option to increase capacity on the city streets. Show of hands who wants to double deck sunset blvd. I'm going to make the wild assumption that this is not possible. 2. We are not creating alternatives to the commuting mode of cars and freeways for large populations in the region. All of the western side of los angles and orange counties do not have commuter rail. People cannot inch from Huntington Beach to UCLA on 2 trains and 3 bus's with some 50 stops in between its going to take them hours to get to a destination. We need to create limited stop commuter rail lines that hit the western side of these areas, if not I guarantee in 10 years each of us will be dedicating more and more of our day to the commute. How does 6 hours a day or 8 hours a day for the commute sound? I don't want to live like that and so I believe we must have these fast limited stop commuter rail lines hitting the western sides of these counties. Down the 10 freeway to Santa Monica (4 stops from santa monica, and you are in downtown) and down the 405 to Irvine ( 7 stops from UCLA and you are in Irvine). What I predict is going to happen next, is that none of the current mass transit improvements are gonna make a significant difference, the crucial commuter rail portion of the plans are missing. Traffic is going to get worse and worse, traffic planners are going to notice that price changes people's habits, and congestion pricing will be upon us. It will probably start as lexus lanes, but eventually turn into what London has, where you can't enter the city grid without paying $10 to $20 each time. At which point all of us poor folk myself included will have to do these slow 2 hour plus commutes on at grad rail and bus's that I'm warning of. If you wanna see the map I created and sent over to the MTA imagine project its at: www.bigday.la/transitmap_saadi_05.gifI love the discussion guys, definitely gimme more opinions. I truly wanna see light at the end of this tunnel. I look foward to the day where I'm joyously car free. However right now I honestly don't look forward to the options that are being offered.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 24, 2008 20:08:48 GMT -8
The MTA helps plan the carpool lanes, but really Caltrans is in charge of building them. Even if the MTA had control to build the lanes, the funding would be in a completely different bucket and the MTA could not just transfer money from highway spending to public transit spending.
As far as your suggestions, I think they are really too tailored around your own transit needs. The Purple Line will take less than 30 minutes from Downtown LA to Downtown Santa Monica (I heard a 26 minute estimate from the MTA). That would mean about an hour commute from Pasadena - all of the slow portion being on the Gold Line, which wouldn't change with your proposal. Very few passengers on the Purple Line will be from Pasadena, although I would expect quite a few commuters from Metrolink from Orange County, the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire. Even with these, the vast majority of the commuters will be residents of Central, Mid-City and West Los Angeles where the line goes.
Your proposal to cut out most of the stops between Downtown LA and SM will cut out most of the ridership. You are advocating a Metrolink type system for LA for long distance suburban commuters. Keep in mind, the entire Metrolink system carries only 1/3 the passengers of the Red Line...
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on May 24, 2008 22:18:23 GMT -8
your map also seems to indicate that no new light or heavy lines be built east of downtown. [minus a rosemead line which seems a bit silly to me] have you ever been east of downtown?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 24, 2008 23:43:03 GMT -8
I think that a whole lotta car commuters would appreciate something like Metrolink and the plans that Saadi is proposing. Those who commute locally and are already committed transit riders are probably more interested in MetroRail plans, but those looking for alternatives to their car are probably more interested in Metrolink plans.
My personal belief is that they both have vital and wonderful benefits for a more livable and economically-vibrant Southern California of the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 25, 2008 8:41:28 GMT -8
Dude, I can't overstate how much I DESPISE train stations in freeway medians. They are not places that are designed for human occupancy. The first problem is their location compared to the surrounding neighborhood. There are exceptions, but there's usually nothing within a few block walk on either side of the freeway. There's lots of stuff built next to freeways that's convenient for cars, but when you're a pedestrian you see that it's not as convenient for you.
But my main complaint is the noise. I'd love for someone to take a decibel meter to Imperial or one of the green line stations and test the noise level. I'm positive that it's above 85 dB which is the level that normally triggers ear protection in the workplace. I suspect that it's well above 85 however since we are passengers and not employees we don't fall under OSHA requirements.
We can put the stations in the middle of freeways and it would certainly make sense in limited cases, but if we planned some massive implementation as you describe I'd just as soon we used the money for more buses because I won't be riding the new lines.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 25, 2008 22:57:40 GMT -8
I've been working on an idea related to this topic for quite sometime now, I hadn't planned to mention it until I ran it by a few more people but I saw this thread and figured it'd be good to toss it out there and see what you guys think. I first came to the conclusion that highway medians were an ideal place for a large rail network when it became obvious to me that often the most expensive part both in time and money of building projects appeared to be caused by land acquisition and general neighbourhood concerns (or the inert nature of NIMBY-ness to be blunt). This usually resulted in an unfavourable routing, delay of the project, increased expense due to higher overall costs due to inflation, or scraping of the project. It would also create political and public problems which is never positive for any project. After understanding this I started to look for ways to decrease the risk of those major barries to entry and decided the best way to do this would be to use right-of-ways provided by existing infrastructure that could be retrofitted Flood control channels: I haven't really thought about this idea too much recently but the idea is essentially that you could simply cover these large channels and lay some tracks. If covered completely you would get the benefit of not having anyone fall into these channels every winter along with perhaps having some nice parks and various other things to enhance the community immediately surrounding these areas. Highway medians: I thought of this when I realized carpool lanes were largely ineffecient due to the fact that they're only really used during peak periods which usually meant they were only heavily travelled once a day, or in areas that have heavy traffic in both directions during peak hours twice a day which meant most of the time these lanes are not well travelled. This would be fine if we didn't have so many cars trying to use the same road at the same time, it's because of this that carpool lanes in some areas have become the fifth lane during peak times making them essentially a moot point. So I thought putting a rail network where the carpool lanes are could make that space more efficient. But how? 1) Remove the carpool lane and toll the remaining lanes. No toll booths would be constructed, all tolls would be done electronically through FasTrak. -- more on this later 2) In order to get people to use the train (or public transport in general) in a place where car is king several things must happen. a) It must be faster or in some cases equal to the time it takes to drive to their destination. This would require an express service from the start, meaning four tracks. b) It must be secure, clean, and comfortable. So you'd need a person at each station and gates not to mentioned some decent seats (cushioned if possible) and for sure there must be a huge crackdown on vandalism and vandals. c) It must cost less than driving. 3) Because of the need for four track operation there will likely be a need to use a mix of the following. a) All: elevated, underground, or level with the highway. b) A combination of: two tracks elevated, where the carpool lanes used to be, or underground. 4) A valid and large complaint that many people have is that train stations in highway medians are overall an uncomfortable experience. This can be solved very simply by using Platform Screen Doors (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors). This can also enable driverless trains assuming the train is fully seperated from motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 5) Solar and Infrared arrays could be used to partially or fully power the system and make money for the controlling agency when there is excess power generated. Tolling: In order for the above scheme to work tolling must be utilized but not for just the purpose of tolling but for gathering traffic data more effectively. 1) The entire region must come together to create a toll system that is entirely electronic (no cash toll booths). Probably some law(s) would need to be created as well. For this to occur entry and exit points to the the region must have centers established that will loan or allow a driver to purchase a transmitter. Ideally this would be on at the edges of the region where it's very hard to enter or leave any other way. For example: a) U.S. 101 near Ventura b) I-5 at CA-14 or I-5 near Santa Clarita/Castaic and CA-14 near Palmdale or Lancaster c) I-15 near the Cajon Pass d) CA-138 near the Cajon Pass e) CA-330 near Highland f) I-10 near Beaumont g) I-215 near Moreno Valley h) I-15 near Corona I) I-5 near San Clemente Naturally various centers for residents within the region would need to be established incase they need a new transmitter or to address various other issues. 2) Toll must be cheap at the start of the project, otherwise negative political and public pressure will be too great. 3) Transmitters will be given to all registered vehicles within the region for free. 4) The transmitters will double as an anonymous traffic pattern information gathering device by utilizing GPS. The idea is that by gathering this data everything from traffic signals to bus routes could be planned more effectively since we would be able to see traffic patterns in greater detail. To protect privacy things could be done like restrict data collection on residential streets. The data is useless if it's only focused on an individual, the system would be designed to take everyones data then merge it together to generate maps and allow for planners to see a general A to B of this collective data, you wouldn't see where one person started there route but where many people began to go the same way. There is a lot more to this that I have not stated above but I think you get the general idea.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 26, 2008 7:39:47 GMT -8
Actually, the list of ideas to enhance freeway median station livability is huge, and to my knowledge nothing really works.
Saadi mentioned that the freeway medians are great for long distances on the freeway, but that the stations should be off the freeway median--I concur.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 26, 2008 9:18:13 GMT -8
I don't believe that's entirely realistic as it would reduce train speeds, add to costs, and require acquisition of land (very negative). Going off the median should only happen at a destination like LAX or avoiding the obvious structural barrier like an interchange, buying land should only happen for things like parking structures or creating space where necessary.
I often ask people who don't use public transport specific questions to figure out what their barriers to entry are and I've never heard anyone list the ability to walk to their local station (although it's a plus) but rather how fast, clean/comfortable, and safe the train is in that order. So walking was never at the top of anyones list which never really surprised me. It also appeared to me that people have a much more positive idea of a train as opposed to a bus and therefore would likely drive to the stations parking structure until they felt the busses were clean/comfortable, safe, and fast in that order. Better bus routes would be forged by the data collected by the GPS transmitter embeded in the FasTrak unit and overall better data collection methods in the bus system itself.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 26, 2008 10:09:45 GMT -8
you know, I have to admit that I was skeptical at first of Saadi's freeway rail idea, and with good reason.
freeway stations have obvious disadvantages. you can not simply wish away the noise on the Century Freeway, nor can you eliminate the soot and air pollution from the passing traffic; yes, people do in fact sometimes build right up to the very edge of the freeway, so close that they can put up those "if you lived here, you'd be home by now" posters - that does not change the fact that freeway-adjacent is NOT the ideal "transit oriented development" that has become one of the hallmarks of modern American light rail.
then I realized that this was not your typical freeway rail idea: we've all seen, or think we've seen this before — some Blissfully Ignorant, naive but frustrated car driving commuter has a Sudden Brainstorm and sends it to the Times as a Letter to the Editor: if I drive the freeways, maybe we can build trains On The Freeway and get Some Other Idiot to use it.
however, freeway rail does have its merits. the MTA has been concentrating on (and been very successful at) building rail lines that work very well for relatively shorter commutes, but to be perfectly frank, a lot of L.A. commutes don't work that way.
we may have a light rail system that goes from Long Beach to Pasadena (and will soon have a light rail system that will stretch from the Westside to East L.A.), but it's not very convenient for actually getting from Long Beach or from Santa Monica to Pasadena. we have Metrolink for the Irvine to L.A. commuters, but Metrolink has never expanded into the Westside or the South Bay, and that's part of the reason why the anti-rail forces have been able to snipe at us for not getting enough car drivers to ride transit. it's a tough blow to swallow, but for all of our hard-fought efforts to get Metro Rail expanded, and for all of the progress we've made and the increases in transit ridership, there's still a long way for us to go.
to make a long-winded story short: I think maybe, once we get Expo Rail, the Eastside Gold, the Downtown Connector built and the Purple Line a few miles further down Wilshire, we should look into some of these freeway rail ideas. I hate the idea of freeway stations. I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of freeway stations.
but, there is something to be said for using freeways to get from one part of our widespread city to another. I like the idea of having stations in a traditional downtown district, and then using the freeway for a "quick escape."
as others have said, we need both express trains and local light rail lines, and as long as the express trains don't come at the expense of building more light rail and subway lines to relieve pressure off of our overcrowded buses (which is probably the more pressing need), then we shouldn't kneejerk dismiss the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 26, 2008 11:35:03 GMT -8
I would love to see Metrolink service to the Westside eventually. Part of why London works so well for commuters is that they have several "Union Stations". Options for the Westside include the Sepulveda line being a "metrolink" service (which has pitfalls of course for being costly to local riders), or constructing a direct line from Union Station to a LAX centered terminal where the Green, Crenshaw and Sepulveda lines come together with an LAX people mover. Is there a current frieght line from LAX to Union Station now or an old ROW?
One big problem Metrolink faces is that the ever-expanding business from Los Angeles and Long Beach ports means there is hot competition for those rail lines its currently using.
The Purple Line shouldn't have the middle gutted out of it for long distance commuters.
An express track is an interesting idea, though would probably be decided to be too costly.
Metrolink has no current plans to expand its service within Los Angeles County by adding additional routes. I think somehow getting Metrolink to the Westside is a wonderful idea. Now, how we make that happen is a real LONG term goal.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 26, 2008 16:58:28 GMT -8
Here's an image of what aerial rail down the middle of a freeway would likely look like, using standard Caltrans bridge technology. The columns would fill at least one lane. (The photo is on the 91 freeway, an HOV flyover to the 57, one lane and shoulder in each direction.) And here's my image of the Las Vegas monorail along the side of the Charnock flood channel in Mar Vista ( original post with comments about monorails).
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 26, 2008 21:41:03 GMT -8
Nope, still not there. It does work if you right-click and grab the link then paste in your browser.
Thanks for mentioning how many lanes an aerial would take, I was concerned about that considering how much space is used for I-110.
Also that picture reminded me of one of the challenges of such a project which is existing structures in medians like carpool interchanges. I suppose they could be used to create lines that transition to other highways in some situations, but I definitely need to think about this some more.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 26, 2008 22:51:56 GMT -8
Nope, still not there. It does work if you right-click and grab the link then paste in your browser. Wierd. I tried different ways in Blogger and Picasa and the images would first appear, but then not if I refreshed the page. Should be there now.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on May 26, 2008 23:27:18 GMT -8
Re: LAUS bottleneck & "Los Angeles Centric" Metrolink Model:
This issue has been addressed with a run-through track proposal at LAUS as well as other solutions. View this report.
Re: I-405 Corridor Commuter Line:
Yes, that I-405 through OC could use some transit alternatives, but I do have reservations on the routing via the freeway median. This is going to be a hard one to tackle. Unfortunately, I do not think that running the rail line along the median of the freeway will work here too and I cannot provide any quick alternatives right away yet. We've got a complicated situation here. My only "quick" input here is to have the line be safe enough so that portions of it can run in undergound tunnels. Here's why I have some reservations for this proposal:
1. The flyover connection between the Irvine TC to the SR 133 corridor is going to be very hard. The trains will have to slow down to just about a crawl to make that sharp turn from the existing rail line to the SR 133 ROW.
2. Once the line reaches Yale Av in Irvine (going north), the median narrows to a concrete barrier and remains that way for just about the rest of the way up. That would mean the remainder of the line would have to be elevated. The carpool lane may also lose its left shoulder emergency lane.
3. Although the MacArthur Bl stop offers a variety of activity centers, the MacArthur & I-405 junction is very car-centric. Looking at the way MacArthur is striped and constructed in the area, it would be unsafe for OCTA to stop their buses over the freeway to feed the riders to the employment centers.
4. How will the line pass through the I-405 and SR-55 junction with the presence of carpool lane flyover ramps on both sides of the SR-55?
5. Any plans to connect to the following: Golden West TC? Downtown Long Beach? Connection to the Metro Blue Line?
I do believe the I-405 corridor could use a transit line, but not in the median for the entire trip. I will have to look at this corridor more carefully to address alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 27, 2008 5:02:15 GMT -8
Perhaps another alternative lies with either the private or public sector initiating a series of buses or vans--with each seat installed with Internet access--so that paying commuters could be picked up at a few key spots and driven to their individual work/dropoff destinations, provided they were freeway-close. Sort of a long-range jitney service, and arguably the greatest justification for carpool lanes altogether.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on May 27, 2008 12:37:56 GMT -8
I like the storm drain idea, although there probably are some concerns about errosion and flooding
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 27, 2008 13:51:28 GMT -8
I should probably point out that ideally the trains would need to go at least ~90mph+ to attract people who prefer to drive during off-peak periods. A system that is slower than driving during these times is a waste since only people who need transit would ride during these times.
Carpool lanes would be abolished under my idea leaving the rest to be regular tolled lanes (makes no sense to have carpool if you toll), so any structures that get in the way or can't be retrofitted for rail would be destroyed and replaced.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on May 27, 2008 17:02:41 GMT -8
I think that the MTA has been doing a good job extending, and planning local rail and local bus lines, but I have been curious why plans for grade separated limited stop commuter rail service to the western side of LA and OC have not been addressed in meetings or in the MTA long range transportation plan. It seems like we are stuck with the idea that only local modalities can be used for local and long distances. I also don't see Metrolink making moves to study these corridors. I believe we are in error and leaving a huge hole in any future system for the region, if fast long range limited stop commuter rail does not come to the westside of these two counties. I have heard many arguments against freeway medians and for alternatives and I still have not seen corridors or solutions that will more effectively or efficiently serve the commuters on the 10 fwy between santa monica and downtown and the 405 fwy between sherman oaks and huntington beach then grade separated rail lines going down the medians of these 2 freeways.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on May 31, 2008 13:23:12 GMT -8
Re: LAUS bottleneck & "Los Angeles Centric" Metrolink Model:
This issue has been addressed with a run-through track proposal at LAUS as well as other solutions. View this report.
Re: I-405 Corridor Commuter Line:
Yes, that I-405 through OC could use some transit alternatives, but I do have reservations on the routing via the freeway median. This is going to be a hard one to tackle. Unfortunately, I do not think that running the rail line along the median of the freeway will work here too and I cannot provide any quick alternatives right away yet. We've got a complicated situation here. My only "quick" input here is to have the line be safe enough so that portions of it can run in undergound tunnels. Here's why I have some reservations for this proposal:
1. The flyover connection between the Irvine TC to the SR 133 corridor is going to be very hard. The trains will have to slow down to just about a crawl to make that sharp turn from the existing rail line to the SR 133 ROW.
2. Once the line reaches Yale Av in Irvine (going north), the median narrows to a concrete barrier and remains that way for just about the rest of the way up. That would mean the remainder of the line would have to be elevated. The carpool lane may also lose its left shoulder emergency lane.
3. Although the MacArthur Bl stop offers a variety of activity centers, the MacArthur & I-405 junction is very car-centric. Looking at the way MacArthur is striped and constructed in the area, it would be unsafe for OCTA to stop their buses over the freeway to feed the riders to the employment centers.
4. How will the line pass through the I-405 and SR-55 junction with the presence of carpool lane flyover ramps on both sides of the SR-55?
5. Any plans to connect to the following: Golden West TC? Downtown Long Beach? Connection to the Metro Blue Line?
I do believe the I-405 corridor could use a transit line, but not in the median for the entire trip. I will have to look at this corridor more carefully to address alternatives. In regards to your comments. I really appreciate the thoroughness of your research. I'm not a civil engineer by any means and do not pretend to be one. Many of the specifics of the route you have noted are challenges that a rail engineer would be better able to answer. I would think that rail overpasses or underpasses would be able to address most of the issues namely the 405/55 interchange. In regards to MacArthur blvd (aka john wayne airport) I don't believe there would be an issue with there being a station here. The Lake ave overpass was retrofitted for a gold line station and I would believe the same would be done for MacArthur Blvd. In regards to connecting to Downtown Long Beach, the Blue Line and Golden West Blvd Huntington Beach. There are so many destinations along this corridor its hard to pick one over the other. I picked most of my stops based on them being glaringly obvious destinations. An airport, a dense office district for the region, or a significant area of interest (major retail center) that lied on the 405 corridor. I limited the stops because I believe a commuter lines primary purpose is to quickly move someone across the region not to a destination a mile away. I figure that is task local modes will do more effectively. If anyone has ideas regarding the best destinations on these routes (405 sylmar to irvine and 10 downtown to santa monica), I'm planning on updating the map at www.bigday.la/transitmap_saadi_05.gif , any feedback would be appreciated. sincerely, Saadi Howell
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 1, 2008 22:37:28 GMT -8
I should probably point out that ideally the trains would need to go at least ~90mph+ to attract people who prefer to drive during off-peak periods. A system that is slower than driving during these times is a waste since only people who need transit would ride during these times. Yeah. How dare people who, you know, actually use transit ride during off-peak hours? At best, that comment is socially obtuse, and at worst, racist. As for the 90+ mph assertion, keep in mind that such a system would be incredibly energy intensive, not to mention useless. Stop spacing dictates the acceleration of a vehicle. Transit vehicles have to accelerate slowly for the safety of riders. Speeds of 0-to-90 or 90-to-0 at the rates of passenger cars would result in passengers needing to be spatulaed off the front or rear of the vehicle. You could have a train going 90+ mph, but it wouldn't particularly be too useful since you'd need to bypass many potential stops to attain such a speed.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 2, 2008 9:42:34 GMT -8
Yes, totally racist *insert favorite rolly-eyes-icon-here* The idea is to attract *new*[/i] riders and keep them there, *not neglect others*[/i]. You don't reduce emissions and traffic by attracting people who don't drive anyway. Attracting people during off-peak is important because if you're going to change the mindset of a region that loves the car you need to provide a true alternative, and to take my comments as being against people whom for whatever reason use public transport as opposed to a car during off-peak hours is down right ridiculous.
Energy can be offset by solar panels placed above the rail line and various other technologies. I'm aware of the limitations of a train but isn't that what innovation is for?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 2, 2008 22:52:10 GMT -8
Yes, totally racist *insert favorite rolly-eyes-icon-here* The idea is to attract *new*[/i] riders and keep them there, *not neglect others*[/i]. You don't reduce emissions and traffic by attracting people who don't drive anyway.[/quote] Ieko, you have veteran users on these boards whose knowledge and use of L.A. transit adds up to well over a century of experience. We've gone beyond articulating just getting a transit system set up; we're advocating for the evolution. We offer a view that most of the 92 percent of the car drivers do not get to see: how transit works. We have 8 percent modal share for transit, but our buses and trains are not 92 percent empty. In fact, on average all vehicles are over capacity (about 150 passengers per hour per train and 57 pph per bus, data from the National Transit Database). Considering that transit service is run according to actual demand, we have a very productive system. The thing is, the best place to run transit is not where the drivers are driving. Metro's most productive bus routes often parallel the direction of a busy freeway, but do not run anywhere near them. The 10 freeway is quite far away from Wilshire Boulevard, yet Wilshire carries so much bus ridership the subway extension is pretty much necessary. Most drivers would say the subway should run near the 10 freeway, because that's where the traffic is. However, that is not where the transit ridership is. Rail ridership is just like bus ridership, only on a much more intensive scale. You do know that solar power generation, while being a clean source of electricity, is still terribly inefficient? There's no conspiracy by oil or power companies to suppress it; solar panels are very expensive and deliver less energy than a comparable sized unit of fossil fuel. You don't see solar-powered cars outside of science competitions, and for those that have been built manage to give about the same performance as a bicycle. Realistically, "innovation" and "technology" have not yet allowed us to break the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 4, 2008 17:42:51 GMT -8
So providing an alternative to the masses is not an evolution of our system? I don't know if you've driven much but all you really need to do is look at your favorite mapping site that provides traffic information, zoom in on Los Angeles during rush hour or even during the afternoon or midday to understand that the system we have doesn't work for most people. Why? It's simple, even with traffic one can drive to their destination(s) faster than they can get there with public transport. I love public transportation and I also enjoy driving, I try to take public transport as much as I can, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that when I have the choice of driving to my school in 30 minutes with traffic, or taking the bus for 110 minutes without traffic I'm going to choose to drive. That's a real example from when I went to El Camino College in Torrance from my house in Torrance by Del Amo Mall. But that may not be fair since it's within my city limits, here I'll give another, It takes me 45 minutes to get from Torrance to Woodley Park in Van Nuys without traffic, by public transport? A little more than two hours using 444, Red Line, and the Orange Line from Sepulveda blvd. & Hawthorne Blvd. in Torrance. You really think the average person will find this acceptable? I don't think so.
Solar energy is making large advances, especially recently because of high energy costs. Solar panels do quite well actually these days and would easily help power the system if it was above the rail line for most of the route. There are several examples of solar power being used to power homes and having extra energy to sell back to power companies. I forgot to mention that IR panels are being engineered as well, so the future is bright for such panels. If by fossil fuels you mean oil then all I can say to you is, do you really believe in the future oil will be at all cost effective?
Local trains do not need to go nearly as fast, but they still need to go as fast or faster between stations that don't have express service than a car could. I don't know if you've been on a modern train recently but from what I can tell they can get up and go rather quickly as well as stop.
I should make it clear that I am not against any mode of transportation, I love all of them but realistically the only way to improve mobility in Los Angeles is to toll most highways with a small fee, build an extensive train network which have stations with proper bus connections and parking. People want to go where they want to go and get there quickly, safely, and without seats with spray paint on them. The only way to do that today is to drive a car.
Oh and on the note of innovation, you'd be surprised what a room full of motivated engineers can do. If you need an example of this then just look up, "they said it could never be done." If you're lazy a good one would be how Honda was the first to meet the standards of Clean Air Act in the 1970's, or you could just look up at the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jun 4, 2008 20:46:16 GMT -8
After looking at the I-405 corridor through Irvine, I think this might be the way to approach the situation:
Any rail project along the coastline corridor is going to be very expensive. There is no dedicated ROW other than the I-405 median; so as an interim solution (but not a substitute), as pointed by Dr Alpern, branded upgraded express bus service (similar to RTA CommuterLink and the OC Express) I believe shoud be considered. OCTA has already begun a BRT project which connects the Irvine TC to the Irvine Business Complex and John Wayne Airport via the I-405. The bus would more than likely use the carpool lane. The line will continue north toward Brea.
OCTA has also considered adding extra express service connecting the following points:
- South OC - Long Beach via SR 73 Toll Road and I-405.
- Rancho Santa Margarita - Foothill Ranch - Irvine via SR 241 Toll Road
I also believe the other existing commuter routes that serve Irvine should be branded and upgraded:
- Route 211
Seal Beach - South Coast Metro - Irvine Spectrum via I-405
- Route 212
South OC - Irvine Business Complex via I-405
- Route 213
Brea - Irvine Business Complex - UCI via SR-55
- Route 216
South OC - South Coast Metro via I-405
As I said, the rail project is going to be expensive. I do support the need of a fast mass transit line connecting these communities together, but we do have to be careful about placing the actual train stations in the center of the freeway. We're looking at some lengthy walks and tough bus connections if a station is placed on the I-405 near MacArthur. The entire interchange would also just about have to be totally redone to make it pedestrian friendly and safe for OCTA to stop their buses there. I do not know whether or not the City of Irvine would support something like that.
Although we can run portions of the line via the freeway ROW to keep the speeds good and direct (eg. The Metrolink San Bernardino Line does this between El Monte and Cal State LA), let's have the stations themselves off the freeway. That's a lesson the Harbor Transitway has taught us.
I can help you with ideas. A station somewhere on Main St. or Michelson Dr. would probably be much safer and pedestrian friendly. It would also be safer for OCTA and the Irvine Shuttle to stop their feeder buses there too. And I believe it would also gain better City support, which is necessary for Metrolink to stop their trains there.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jun 4, 2008 20:58:41 GMT -8
45 minutes from Woodley Park (Encino) to Torrance is awfully slow if you are driving with no traffic; I can drive from Irvine to Mission Hills in 47 minutes (with buddies on the carpool lane). I gave this example before on my once a month trip to the computer swapmeet in Manhattan Beach at Aviation/Marine. I always drive there despite the Green Line terminal being there as the trip starting at Van Nuys Orange Line to the Red Line, Blue Line, then Green Line takes the same two hours you mentioned; which my friends can't handle; similarly, taking the 761 to Culver City 6 to the Green Line may actually take the same amount of time. I make the 30 minute drive starting a bit further up taking the 170, 101, 110 (Harbor Transitway), 105 carpool, 405. During commute hours, taking transit doesn't have to take 2 hours, but at last 1. This is with LADOT's Commuter Express 574. If Metro can run a regularly scheduled service like this, it could bridge the gap between the San Fernando Valley and the deep southern Westside/SoBay area. This is with the current infrastructure we already have (I-405); when the carpool lane gap is finished, the buses will run more smoother. Ever wonder what makes the Van Nuys FlyAway so popular for more than three decades? It's still a bus isn't it? It can get to LAX from the Van Nuys area in a half hour.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 5, 2008 23:26:04 GMT -8
So providing an alternative to the masses is not an evolution of our system? I don't know if you've driven much but all you really need to do is look at your favorite mapping site that provides traffic information, zoom in on Los Angeles during rush hour or even during the afternoon or midday to understand that the system we have doesn't work for most people. Why? It's simple, even with traffic one can drive to their destination(s) faster than they can get there with public transport. The solution is not to tie transit into aping freeway trips, as this is not where the ridership is. We could get a rail system that mimics the freeway grid. It would be poorly used, even though it was designed for drivers to see it. Designing a transit system is not so much as getting it built and hope it catches. San Jose has the most extensive light rail system no one uses. You also have to know where people go. In L.A., the busiest bus lines are often nowhere close to freeways. Bus traffic is the best indicator of rail ridership. It gives an indication of how the rail line will be used, only on a much larger scale. Rail lines have drawn such impressive numbers because they make fewer stops, the stops tend to be very brief, the schedules are reliable and they make longer journeys much more bearable. I think oil has peaked. I'll know for sure January 20, 2010. If gas prices remain at today's $4.25/gallon, or go higher, a year after Bush leaves office, it's all downhill from here. (We also have to be open to the idea that high oil prices just happened to occur under the watch of a presidency with incestuous ties to the oil industry. I am open-minded, after all.) Peak oil is the falling domino that sets others into motion. The crisis is that human civilization has not found a substitute for petroleum that is as abundant, inexpensive and has the same or better ERoEI (energy returned on energy invested). Petroleum achieves 30 barrels of oil for every barrel it takes to extract, ship and refine it. Peak oil also triggers peaks in other fuels, so we'll be mired in a chain of crises. We will "run out" of oil in the sense that we will have sucked the Earth dry of petroleum. There will still be oil left, but what remains will be of a quality and quantity that puts the ERoEI below 1, thereby making petroleum no longer viable as a fuel. Solar power will never deliver the same fuel yield as fossil fuels, which includes petroleum, natural gas and coal. Solar power will become a power generator of last resort once fossil fuels are no longer viable. Right now, solar power is a lifestyle accessory. Solar power will be useful for low-consumption households. (This is assuming that the panels are installed on the houses, and not in some big farm in the desert, where energy is lost due to transmission inefficiency). Solar power is no help to apartments and ludicrous for industrial activity. We'll have solar power, but we'll also have much, MUCH less electricity to use. There will be no place for refrigeration or HVAC systems in a solar world. I am both a very frequent driver and transit user, and live in an area with excellent bus service and a subway station, so I do see it all. Also, there are plenty of people on this board who know me and vouch for me. I don't know the exact figure for acceleration, but public transit vehicles accelerate slowly because of their large size and passenger safety. Are you ever thrown violently backward when the train moves or forward when it stops? No? Then the train accelerates slowly. Most transit vehicles do not have the ability to do jackrabbit starts or come to sudden stops. Braking distance on large vehicles is exponentially greater for the same speed than automobiles. There's also a lag factor involved for commercial vehicles with air brakes. I have experienced very fast starts on transit buses, specifically electric trolleybuses. They have accelerations that feel much faster than automobiles. It's not pleasant, to say the least. I agree with you on the tolling, but once again I state that there are some things that drivers just don't see or understand when it comes to transit. "Proper bus connections?" We have those. The service grid is very comprehensive. As for frequency, it is dictated by how many people actually use the buses. Should we increase bus service to something viable to use (~ 15 minutes)? It would be very expensive, plus, extensive bodies of research show that demand (more boardings) will almost always lag behind supply. If a bus that ran hourly is bumped up to 30 minutes, ridership may never double to maintain productivity levels, or climb so slowly that service would have to be reduced before it gets to the ridership level. Maybe I'm just too jaded in my old age, but I think because of the scientific progress made since the Moon landing has had a perverse effect on the collective psyche. James Howard Kunstler calls it the Jiminy Cricket syndrome. When we wish up on a star, all of our dreams come true. Somewhere along the way, this motivating principle became an operating principle. We've seen what tremendous feats the scientific community has brought us. Now, society expects to daydream any and all of its wishes MUST come true. No one daydreams of not getting what they want. Well, the very same "motivated engineers" you mention now are charged with the task of peeing up a rope. I'm sure there motivated enough to find a product or process that can break the laws of thermodynamics. Science has so far said that these are Iron Laws, which we don't even have the choice of breaking. We're against the wall. The best science is to say: Consume Less. This is no longer a choice.
|
|