|
Post by darrell on Jun 14, 2008 8:16:46 GMT -8
In other words, when it's time to circle the wagons, we should avoid pointing our guns inward. One of my two favorite Ken Alpern quotes! Perhaps you should all meet each other in person, because then you'd realize you were on the same page and have been on the same page for quite some time (based on your postings, even when you differ in your perspectives and conclusions). Back c. 2001 I spent (too much) time on the la.transportation newsgroup, debating transit vs. highways. I met one of the highway advocates at a Metro LRTP public workshop and had a good conversation. I think that affected our posts: we politely disagreed, knowing the person behind computer. There are a lot of stongly-held opinions here, but think polite debate between friends. You'll also be heard better.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 15, 2008 7:19:08 GMT -8
;D Here, here! I'm going to try and get out to TTC meetings and meet some more of you guys, Even Metro center-The card carrying leftist! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 16, 2008 19:26:26 GMT -8
By my estimated timetable for Expo it would be 32-36 minutes from the Water Garden / Bergamot Station to 7th & Flower. Agreed that transfers to and from the Red Line slow the trip to Union Station. But the Regional Connector will speed that up for a whole lot less money than elevated Metrolink to the Westside. How long would the Regional Connector Alternative 5 (subway) take from 7th & Flower to Union Station? It's about 2.3 miles with some tight turns and adds four intermediate stations. About 7-8 minutes? So it could be a two seat ride of Metrolink + Expo Line, around 39-44 minutes for the latter. If Expo trains don't go to Pasadena at least the transfer to the next Pasadena train would only add a couple of minutes. Another big problem with Metrolink to Santa Monica is where do you put the one station, and how do you get to it? It's like SCAG's Maglev proposal, that would go really fast between West LA and downtown, with no stations in-between. Slow connections for most people take away its speed advantage, so why would anyone pay a premium fare to use it? In regards to the Regional connector alternative 5 time: using a 27 mph average speed which is close to the average red line speed you get 7 to 8 minutes which includes a 3 minute transfer time. Estimating that the first 4304 ft. that has the tight turns and an at-grade portion runs at 20 mph average and the rest at 27 mph. I came up with a total time including a 3 minute transfer of a little more then 8 minutes. I think its fair to say that segment will be some where around 8 minutes to get through, which includes the roughly 3 minutes for the transfer. Regarding stations I drove down the 10 yesterday and saw space for a station on north side of the freeway at cloverfield I would need to look further into one at robertson. I also see room on much of the route where the freeway could be expanded without taking peoples property. Darrell how are you calculating your times for expo? My calculations came from the current averages of the gold line. Now maybe I'm in error on this math but I would think the speeds of two light rail lines going through medium density residential would have roughly similar travel times. Maybe the fact that the Gold line isn't as straight a route would have an effect, anyway the average speed I got for the Gold Line was 15.83 mph with an average of 3:47 minutes each mile, when this is applied to the expo I get average travel time from 7th to culver city of 33 minutes, and 57 to 61 minutes to santa monica based on whether it was route 1(total line length 15.7 miles) or route 2 (total line length 16.26 miles) of phase 2. Based on the times you are estimating of 39 to 44 minutes to santa monica, expo would need to be traveling at an average speed of 21 to 25 mph. That seems like a fast estimate for at-grade rail considering that a completely grade separated red line only averages 28.75 mph. As I've said before I'm not a transit engineer so I'm sure there is plenty of room for error on these, but right now I don't know a better way to estimate the speed of a line, except for looking at actually stats from another line in similar conditions. Based on the 57 to 61 minute times I got, I don't think at-grade light rail is good for traveling long distances between regions where other transfers will be required to get to final destinations. I think some form of fast grade separated limited stop line should be the backbone of long commutes, while the at-grade modes move you within walking distance of your destination once you are ideally within a 6 mile radius of it. In regards to the metrolink line going down the 10. I look at it less as a line between downtown and santa monica, and more as an extension of the metrolink commuter rail system, and to remove a gap that makes the system incomplete and inefficient. To me its very similar to the gap between the green line and the norwalk metrolink station (just on a much bigger scale). There is a service gap between those two lines and as a result it dramatically hurts usability of the WHOLE system. I understand that we are trying to bridge the gap between union station and destinations on the westside with this at-grade rail line, but I believe to rely on this to service a long commuting distance like this is creating inefficiencies which harm the WHOLE system. It would be like the MTA saying we won't continue the green line to norwalk, but rather we'll create a dedicated bus line that goes back and forth between these two lines, and saying that solves the problem. In my eyes those kinds of solutions are the problem with the system. By creating needless transfers with large service gaps between major regional destinations where the only options are slower local modes weakens the usability of the entire regional transit network. The whole western side of LA and Orange counties are not hit by the commuter rail network, think of not having freeways west of 110 and 5 freeways, and the only way to get to destinations west of these freeways would be to use surface streets, that is what we are offering commuters with our mass transit network to the westside. I don't think a majority of people would be willing to commute to santa monica from outlying areas on a daily basis if there were no freeways west of downtown. And I don't think a majority of commuters are going to be willing to use slower local modes to commute these long distances either. In my view slower local modes are a must, we need them and can't replace the roll they play, which is to move people around shorter but non-walkable distances (of more then a mile and less then 6 miles) within a region. However we can't do it with them alone we also need to expand our commuter rail network to the western side of LA and Orange County. And in my opinion two routes that would produce the largest impact for the dollar are the 405 from sylmar to irvine and the 10 from downtown to santa monica.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 16, 2008 22:34:24 GMT -8
Darrell how are you calculating your times for expo? Rather than overall average speed I'm using comparable existing timetable segments. Metro rounds to whole minutes - we're not talking rocket science here! If you look at the operator's speedometer, you realize there's slack in the schedule. My base case is stations one mile apart on subway or at-grade right-of-way with gated crossings at 55 mph, 2 minutes. Cut that to a half mile without tight turns, 1 minute. Two miles between stations, 3 minutes. A worst-case examples for street running at 35 mph is the Blue Line from Pico to Grand, 0.7 miles including one tight turn and potential signal delay at Pico, Venice, and Washington, 3 minutes. For my Expo Line street running with signal priority and stations one mile apart I used a range of 3-4 minutes to include signal delay. BTW, here's my estimated Regional Connector Alternative 5 timetable. Comments? Distances are short between stations, but there are tight turns and the intersection at 1st and Alameda. Stations | Miles | Minutes | 7th & Flower | | | 5th & Flower | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Hope | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Spring | 0.4 | 1 | 1st & Alameda | 0.6 | 1-2 | Union Station | 0.5 | 1-2 | Total | 2.1 | 5-7 |
In regards to the metrolink line going down the 10. I look at it less as a line between downtown and santa monica, and more as an extension of the metrolink commuter rail system, and to remove a gap that makes the system incomplete and inefficient. Metrolink seems to work best in lower-density areas where riders can drive to a station and ride to a downtown, and where stations five miles or so apart work reasonably. Along the Expo Line corridor I think its closer station spacing works better for the combined light rail + local access trip than Metrolink, as there isn't space for large centralized parking lots, nor are destinations centralized in a couple of places. For example, if your terminus Metrolink station is at Cloverfield, riders would still need a local connection to downtown Santa Monica or West L.A., removing the speed advantage of fewer stops. Then there's the enormous cost of building along the the I-10 corridor. You'd have to both widen the freeway for median space for columns (parts have no median lane at all) and build all that aerial structure. Ballpark $200M per mile? That's a lot on top of the Expo and Purple Lines, both needed for their own reasons.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 17, 2008 1:10:37 GMT -8
Darrell how are you calculating your times for expo? Rather than overall average speed I'm using comparable existing timetable segments. Metro rounds to whole minutes - we're not talking rocket science here! If you look at the operator's speedometer, you realize there's slack in the schedule. My base case is stations one mile apart on subway or at-grade right-of-way with gated crossings at 55 mph, 2 minutes. Cut that to a half mile without tight turns, 1 minute. Two miles between stations, 3 minutes. A worst-case examples for street running at 35 mph is the Blue Line from Pico to Grand, 0.7 miles including one tight turn and potential signal delay at Pico, Venice, and Washington, 3 minutes. For my Expo Line street running with signal priority and stations one mile apart I used a range of 3-4 minutes to include signal delay. BTW, here's my estimated Regional Connector Alternative 5 timetable. Comments? Distances are short between stations, but there are tight turns and the intersection at 1st and Alameda. Stations | Miles | Minutes | 7th & Flower | | | 5th & Flower | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Hope | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Spring | 0.4 | 1 | 1st & Alameda | 0.6 | 1-2 | Union Station | 0.5 | 1-2 | Total | 2.1 | 5-7 |
In regards to the metrolink line going down the 10. I look at it less as a line between downtown and santa monica, and more as an extension of the metrolink commuter rail system, and to remove a gap that makes the system incomplete and inefficient. Metrolink seems to work best in lower-density areas where riders can drive to a station and ride to a downtown, and where stations five miles or so apart work reasonably. Along the Expo Line corridor I think its closer station spacing works better for the combined light rail + local access trip than Metrolink, as there isn't space for large centralized parking lots, nor are destinations centralized in a couple of places. For example, if your terminus Metrolink station is at Cloverfield, riders would still need a local connection to downtown Santa Monica or West L.A., removing the speed advantage of fewer stops. Then there's the enormous cost of building along the the I-10 corridor. You'd have to both widen the freeway for median space for columns (parts have no median lane at all) and build all that aerial structure. Ballpark $200M per mile? That's a lot on top of the Expo and Purple Lines, both needed for their own reasons. What sort of result do you get for times on the gold line using this method for calculating segment speed? I'm hesitant to use anything other then averages in speed achieved with like modes in similar circumstance, from that point I look at differences like there being more or less stations per mile to estimate whether it will achieve faster or slower times. In regards to the metrolink line down the 10, the terminus was never posed as cloverfield its always been santa monica civic center. I think metrolink functions as a line that brings people from outlying areas into city centers. Santa Monica and Culver City are now major commuting destinations, the traffic on the 10 in the morning is as bad going west as it is going east. The idea behind this line is to limit cars coming into the westside, which already has horrible traffic issues. Regarding the destination of West LA, I agree that there is a destination there and that's why I believe there is an opportunity here that is not possible with the purple or expo line. Since metrolink going down the 10 and 405 would be the same mode you'd be able to link the tracks and create multiple commuting routes out of 2 lines.You could have commuter trains that go from riverside to santa monica or riverside to sherman oaks or even sylmar to santa monica for that matter. I agree the expense is going to be massive for lines like these, but I believe people are already aware that it is going to be necessary for large sums of money to be spent to create a network that is actually going to work. That is why I think it is vitally important for each line we build to be as effective as possible. And that we need to think about the bigger picture not just a line from A to B, but also how it will interconnect with the rest of the system and how it will logically flow so that it is as easy for someone that lives in Huntington Beach to use as it is for someone that lives in Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 17, 2008 3:55:21 GMT -8
Wad my statements are that lines should be built correctly the first time. Going and tearing up those streets to tunnel 2 separate times 10 to 20 years apart is going to raise the price of the purple line needlessly. My adamant call for the purple line being double tracked in each direction for express service and there needing to be a creation of a metrolink line down the 10 is about one principle issue. It is about commuters that are filling up our roads and not filling up the seats of the metro. This has to be the biggest flaw in your logic. You're basically saying, the trains are empty but we should keep building until we hit a magic tipping point. Ask the people of San Jose to see how that worked out there. First, are you even properly framing the problem? L.A. has many problems, but three of four rail lines are not begging for ridership. Even the Gold Line has just now started to show some positive trends. The Blue Line is one place where more ridership is more of a burden than a blessing. Second, do you understand how massive of a capacity demand you are creating? Four-track tubes will cost more than double what the $5+ billion just the Wilshire subway will cost. The subway is capable of absorbing much more ridership before it may need extra tracks -- if it will ever need them. Third, the end-to-end trips are the smallest subset of a corridor's overall ridership. Going back to your four-tube suggestion, do you think that the express tracks will move as many people as the local tracks? The subway to the sea would add as much as 250,000 boardings to what is running now. I can tell you right now there won't be 250,000 other riders who refuse to ride the subway because there is no express option. There won't even be enough express riders to make such a venture worthwhile. There may be some express demand, but it can fit on a bus. So you believe that when 7 percent of Los Angeles County is using mass transit, trains and buses are 93 percent empty? (Hint: Transit agencies schedule service based on how many people use the buses, not how large the population is.) I'm sorry, but I must be frank here and I have to say that you are getting so many things wrong. First, you misidentify the problems. Second, you don't establish the underlying factors of what the problem is. Third, because the problem construct was poorly thought out, you seek solutions that end up not solving the problem and causing their own troubles. It's not just you. It's the 93 percent of the county that's not using public transit, and for several reasons, they began to glom on to the issue when gas prices became high. However, Angelenos are not willing or able to edify themselves with the information to make an educated decision. Instead, they reduce the information to the abilities that their minds are able to grasp. They can only come up with simplistic causes and effects. No one talks about the history, the who, what, where, when, why and how much. We hear the same banal tropes and see the same calls to make transit more car-like. Understand this: Transit is not a blank slate. We are not building a system from scratch. We have to seek out the information available to us now (ridership statistics, trip patterns, funding sources) and figure out ways to get better results. Saadi, I am not using this board to bully you. I do have misgivings with your assessment of transit in L.A. Since you're on this board, you can probably get good feedback on what data to use and even for different ways of looking at the matter.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 17, 2008 23:30:12 GMT -8
Wad my statements are that lines should be built correctly the first time. Going and tearing up those streets to tunnel 2 separate times 10 to 20 years apart is going to raise the price of the purple line needlessly. My adamant call for the purple line being double tracked in each direction for express service and there needing to be a creation of a metrolink line down the 10 is about one principle issue. It is about commuters that are filling up our roads and not filling up the seats of the metro. This has to be the biggest flaw in your logic. You're basically saying, the trains are empty but we should keep building until we hit a magic tipping point. Ask the people of San Jose to see how that worked out there. First, are you even properly framing the problem? L.A. has many problems, but three of four rail lines are not begging for ridership. Even the Gold Line has just now started to show some positive trends. The Blue Line is one place where more ridership is more of a burden than a blessing. Second, do you understand how massive of a capacity demand you are creating? Four-track tubes will cost more than double what the $5+ billion just the Wilshire subway will cost. The subway is capable of absorbing much more ridership before it may need extra tracks -- if it will ever need them. Third, the end-to-end trips are the smallest subset of a corridor's overall ridership. Going back to your four-tube suggestion, do you think that the express tracks will move as many people as the local tracks? The subway to the sea would add as much as 250,000 boardings to what is running now. I can tell you right now there won't be 250,000 other riders who refuse to ride the subway because there is no express option. There won't even be enough express riders to make such a venture worthwhile. There may be some express demand, but it can fit on a bus. So you believe that when 7 percent of Los Angeles County is using mass transit, trains and buses are 93 percent empty? (Hint: Transit agencies schedule service based on how many people use the buses, not how large the population is.) I'm sorry, but I must be frank here and I have to say that you are getting so many things wrong. First, you misidentify the problems. Second, you don't establish the underlying factors of what the problem is. Third, because the problem construct was poorly thought out, you seek solutions that end up not solving the problem and causing their own troubles. It's not just you. It's the 93 percent of the county that's not using public transit, and for several reasons, they began to glom on to the issue when gas prices became high. However, Angelenos are not willing or able to edify themselves with the information to make an educated decision. Instead, they reduce the information to the abilities that their minds are able to grasp. They can only come up with simplistic causes and effects. No one talks about the history, the who, what, where, when, why and how much. We hear the same banal tropes and see the same calls to make transit more car-like. Understand this: Transit is not a blank slate. We are not building a system from scratch. We have to seek out the information available to us now (ridership statistics, trip patterns, funding sources) and figure out ways to get better results. Saadi, I am not using this board to bully you. I do have misgivings with your assessment of transit in L.A. Since you're on this board, you can probably get good feedback on what data to use and even for different ways of looking at the matter. You say we don't need faster lines unless regular service is full beyond capacity, I say the streets a full of people who won't ride unless you build faster lines....sigh. I personally think we are in some chicken or the egg sort of scenario here, and I am not really sure how to bridge it. I'll say we agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 18, 2008 3:50:20 GMT -8
You say we don't need faster lines unless regular service is full beyond capacity, I say the streets a full of people who won't ride unless you build faster lines....sigh. I personally think we are in some chicken or the egg sort of scenario here, and I am not really sure how to bridge it. Here's how. Take two values in a service. You say speed. I say productivity. The goal is to find a balance between the two, to find the most tolerable speed that can move the most people. You might want to use a spreadsheet for this. You can do a simplified calculation, just based on length of time between scheduled stops, and ridership, with figures available on the Transit Coalition page. Real-world calculations add many more factors, such as fare and on-time performance, but we don't have to worry about those for right now. You then would begin to check schedules to see a pattern. You'd first realize that it wouldn't be worth the effort to increase the speeds of stations close together. The actual time savings would be so small that riders would see little benefit. Time, unlike money, cannot be stored and used at a later date. So you could have a service that is relatively 25 percent faster, but if a one-way trip is 20 minutes, it's not going to be worth the trouble to bring down a short trip by 5 minutes. As for the end trips, you'd also realize that because these are the longest trips, they attract the shortest ridership. A Blue Line trip end-to-end is about an hour, but you could then promise a 25 percent savings, which is a service that can cover those ends in 45 minutes. In this case, an absolute time savings of 15 minutes is a big deal. You'd see the biggest ridership subset is within the midpoints of the line. Then, the same rules apply when you regress to the counts for individual stops. You would then see that there are many more people going from, say Rosa Parks station to either 7th Street/Metro Center or Transit Mall, than there are from 7th Street/Metro Center to Transit Mall. You then do a simple calculation of ranges of time savings. Start from 5 percent and go up in 5-point increments. This sounds very abstract and confusing, but you'll get a better handle on how people ride. Then you can plan for the faster service and see how many people would take it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 18, 2008 11:33:00 GMT -8
;D Here, here! I'm going to try and get out to TTC meetings and meet some more of you guys, Even Metro center-The card carrying leftist! Sincerely The Roadtrainer Ha! I'll see if I can make it!
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 19, 2008 1:07:44 GMT -8
You say we don't need faster lines unless regular service is full beyond capacity, I say the streets a full of people who won't ride unless you build faster lines....sigh. I personally think we are in some chicken or the egg sort of scenario here, and I am not really sure how to bridge it. Here's how. Take two values in a service. You say speed. I say productivity. The goal is to find a balance between the two, to find the most tolerable speed that can move the most people. You might want to use a spreadsheet for this. You can do a simplified calculation, just based on length of time between scheduled stops, and ridership, with figures available on the Transit Coalition page. Real-world calculations add many more factors, such as fare and on-time performance, but we don't have to worry about those for right now. You then would begin to check schedules to see a pattern. You'd first realize that it wouldn't be worth the effort to increase the speeds of stations close together. The actual time savings would be so small that riders would see little benefit. Time, unlike money, cannot be stored and used at a later date. So you could have a service that is relatively 25 percent faster, but if a one-way trip is 20 minutes, it's not going to be worth the trouble to bring down a short trip by 5 minutes. As for the end trips, you'd also realize that because these are the longest trips, they attract the shortest ridership. A Blue Line trip end-to-end is about an hour, but you could then promise a 25 percent savings, which is a service that can cover those ends in 45 minutes. In this case, an absolute time savings of 15 minutes is a big deal. You'd see the biggest ridership subset is within the midpoints of the line. Then, the same rules apply when you regress to the counts for individual stops. You would then see that there are many more people going from, say Rosa Parks station to either 7th Street/Metro Center or Transit Mall, than there are from 7th Street/Metro Center to Transit Mall. You then do a simple calculation of ranges of time savings. Start from 5 percent and go up in 5-point increments. This sounds very abstract and confusing, but you'll get a better handle on how people ride. Then you can plan for the faster service and see how many people would take it. Now tell me why so many people don't ride these transit lines. I understand your premise on how people currently ride mass transit in Los Angeles. If they are currently riding it is clear that the current metro system is working for them, however I'm interested in finding out why others are not riding. And based on those reasons, building new lines that fulfill the criteria that will get these additional people to use mass transit. I think the more people we get to ride mass transit in LA, the easier it will be to get community support for new lines. Expanding the local lines across the region is one part of it, however I don't believe it can be done with those alone. I believe a system that will truly transform the public's perception of mass transit in LA also requires getting fast commuter rail to these areas as well. I still believe the the purple line should be double tracked in each direction, and I believe we need some sort of grade separated commuter line for the 10 and 405 freeways. I think its a waste of money to continue to build slow line after slow line. I sometimes work in hollywood near hollywood and vine, I took the gold to red line a few times for work however eventually came to the conclusion that it was to slow and stopped using it. I feel that if I'm going to have to deal with a slow at-grade lines like the gold line for one leg of my commute then I expect that I'll at least be able to make up the difference riding a fast express line for the rest of the trip, however when its all added together the red line is still to slow and my car wins this race every time, even in the middle of rush hour. To have to do slow mode after slow mode doesn't just make me frustrated, it makes me take my car. I believe most people that take their cars take them because their trips would require taking multiple slow modes, and at a certain point just figure it is just too much trouble and too slow.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 19, 2008 4:32:41 GMT -8
Now tell me why so many people don't ride these transit lines. I'm arguing the opposite point. Why do rail lines have the ridership they do? Why have they shown a great upside? Transit in the United States is demand-based. Service is run according to how many people utilize the service, not the population as a whole. Survey them. However, scrutinize the data carefully. I'll bluntly say this: You have to know who will take transit in earnest and who are equivocators. Would you be able to tell which is which? Saadi, that train left the station a few years ago, so to speak. This is already happening. How come we are revisiting the subway issue not even a decade after when 2/3 of the county passed a law forbidding local sales taxes to be used for tunneling? When Zev's Law passed, I figured the subway issue would be dead for at least another generation. You're seeing more support for it now than in much of modern history -- and even going back to when L.A. ran streetcars. You are right. It cannot be done alone. And who will provide this service? Metrolink won't. SCRRA sticks to a model of running intercounty commuter rail across long distances by using extant rights of way. It looks for a place to plop a few trains down and then runs them. It doesn't engage in massive capital campaigns. It's also proven to be exceptionally popular and effective both as a service and a governance structure. Building new tracks costs as much as light rail, yet for that capital people are only getting Metrolink levels of service. That's a pretty bad deal. It's quadruple-tracking. The subway is already double-tracked. I've explained to you why it won't happen. It will cost more than $10 billion, and the double cost does not mean it will attract double the ridership. Plus, the subway would allow for massive levels of service before it needs four tracks. Besides, if people needed point-to-point service, a bus might be faster.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 19, 2008 12:46:34 GMT -8
I sometimes work in hollywood near hollywood and vine, I took the gold to red line a few times for work however eventually came to the conclusion that it was to[o] slow and stopped using it. I feel that if I'm going to have to deal with a slow at-grade lines like the gold line for one leg of my commute then I expect that I'll at least be able to make up the difference riding a fast express line for the rest of the trip, however when its all added together the red line is still to slow and my car wins this race every time, even in the middle of rush hour. To have to do slow mode after slow mode doesn't just make me frustrated, it makes me take my car. I believe most people that take their cars take them because their trips would require taking multiple slow modes, and at a certain point just figure it is just too much trouble and too slow. That is a trade-off with rail transit. You get a consistent speed, but driving on the freeway when traffic is moving is certainly faster. Note that the Gold Line, except for the half-mile at 20 mph in Highland Park, is about the same speed at the Red Line. My standard example of one mile between stations in 2 minutes = 30 mph. While the freeway can be 75 mph or 15 mph. The trade-off you're recommending is fewer station stops for faster rail time. That's good if the remaining stations are conveniently located for you, but may not help your door-to-door trip time if fewer stations result in more time for local connections. Remember the limited-stop experiment on the Gold Line? It didn't save that much time, inconvenienced passengers, and was discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 19, 2008 15:38:03 GMT -8
I sometimes work in hollywood near hollywood and vine, I took the gold to red line a few times for work however eventually came to the conclusion that it was to[o] slow and stopped using it. I feel that if I'm going to have to deal with a slow at-grade lines like the gold line for one leg of my commute then I expect that I'll at least be able to make up the difference riding a fast express line for the rest of the trip, however when its all added together the red line is still to slow and my car wins this race every time, even in the middle of rush hour. To have to do slow mode after slow mode doesn't just make me frustrated, it makes me take my car. I believe most people that take their cars take them because their trips would require taking multiple slow modes, and at a certain point just figure it is just too much trouble and too slow. When I read this, it makes me think of how undeveloped and un-dense Los Angeles really is and how more efficient our freeway system is to the rail transit. If we had more density, less deadzones, we'd have more traffic, and more incentive for you to take Metro rail over your car. That's the problem with LA, we fight an uphill battle with freeways. We built the best darn freeway network in the world, how do you have public transit compete with it without the added density?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 19, 2008 16:02:55 GMT -8
^ What is also part of the equation is the cost of parking which makes this choice a lot easier. A perfect example from another city is Chicago. Now driving between the Northside and Downtown Chicago is quicker getting on LSD (Lake Shore Drive) than taking the Red Line or even the Purple Line or Metra express service. However, what helps achieve the high ridership is that the deeper you get into the Loop and Downtown Chicago, the more expensive the parking is. If the cost of Parking was higher around Hollywood/Downtown/Mid-Wilshire areas it would accelerate the density and removal of deadzone spaces and re-allocate those back to pedestrians and transit.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 19, 2008 16:08:45 GMT -8
I sometimes work in hollywood near hollywood and vine, I took the gold to red line a few times for work however eventually came to the conclusion that it was to[o] slow and stopped using it. I feel that if I'm going to have to deal with a slow at-grade lines like the gold line for one leg of my commute then I expect that I'll at least be able to make up the difference riding a fast express line for the rest of the trip, however when its all added together the red line is still to slow and my car wins this race every time, even in the middle of rush hour. To have to do slow mode after slow mode doesn't just make me frustrated, it makes me take my car. I believe most people that take their cars take them because their trips would require taking multiple slow modes, and at a certain point just figure it is just too much trouble and too slow. That is a trade-off with rail transit. You get a consistent speed, but driving on the freeway when traffic is moving is certainly faster. Note that the Gold Line, except for the half-mile at 20 mph in Highland Park, is about the same speed at the Red Line. My standard example of one mile between stations in 2 minutes = 30 mph. While the freeway can be 75 mph or 15 mph. The trade-off you're recommending is fewer station stops for faster rail time. That's good if the remaining stations are conveniently located for you, but may not help your door-to-door trip time if fewer stations result in more time for local connections. Remember the limited-stop experiment on the Gold Line? It didn't save that much time, inconvenienced passengers, and was discontinued. Another point with transit that can improve ridership are quicker and better executed timed transfers. At least with rail services during off-peak times schedules can be adjusted to make critical transfer connections between the rail lines. Also information for passengers at transit centers to show next bus arriving or a large bulletin board with enlarged copies of the timetables and highlighted timepoints can help aid riders to provide enough information to make effective connections. We have those large Sig-alert signs over the freeways to display potential delays so motorists can react and make some adjustments on the fly. We can acheive the same goals here.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jun 19, 2008 20:16:02 GMT -8
...and Chicago parking is not cheap! Go to Google Maps, zoom in on the Chicago Loop, turn on street view, and turn the camera toward any of the parking garages. I was able to find a sign that read "Public Parking: $6.00 for the first 20 minutes, $20.00 early bird special (ie. park before around 8:30am and leave before about 7:00pm)".
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 20, 2008 3:10:03 GMT -8
Now tell me why so many people don't ride these transit lines. I'm arguing the opposite point. Why do rail lines have the ridership they do? Why have they shown a great upside? Transit in the United States is demand-based. Service is run according to how many people utilize the service, not the population as a whole. I would not consider the mass transit system of LA a gleaming success story, when no more then a handful of the people I know use it, and of those people that ride, none are for long commutes (max trip the gold line to downtown). When you say you argue the opposite point then I believe you have a sheltered perspective, because most people do not ride mass transit in LA. I think now in the time of rising gas prices the main reason people would ride is because of financial necessity. However if service is not improved, that honeymoon will be short lived because gas prices like this aren't going to last something will come into the market to fill the vacuum (hybrid, electric or whatever) which will again lower cost and then people will return to their cars because they are sick of the inconvenience. When the transit system becomes more efficient that is when people will truly convert, but not until that point. What this system is lacking is commuter express service to the western reaches of LA and Orange Counties, if you are going to say for express service someone should ride the bus then our mass transit system is truly in a sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that this is a complete admission that the rail network is inadequate and cannot compete with the automobile. As I've said before the purple line should be double tracked in each direction on the first build, I think its a waste of tax payers money to build more and more local service without planning for the need for concurrent express service. I also believe for long distances and commutes across the region nothing is going to match the speed of grade separated limited stop commuter rail on the freeway medians of the 10 freeway west of downtown to santa monica and on the 405 between sylmar and irvine. I'm not going to get out of my car until the mass transit network can compete with the car in either speed or convenience. Right now it can beat the car in neither.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 20, 2008 3:26:33 GMT -8
I sometimes work in hollywood near hollywood and vine, I took the gold to red line a few times for work however eventually came to the conclusion that it was to[o] slow and stopped using it. I feel that if I'm going to have to deal with a slow at-grade lines like the gold line for one leg of my commute then I expect that I'll at least be able to make up the difference riding a fast express line for the rest of the trip, however when its all added together the red line is still to slow and my car wins this race every time, even in the middle of rush hour. To have to do slow mode after slow mode doesn't just make me frustrated, it makes me take my car. I believe most people that take their cars take them because their trips would require taking multiple slow modes, and at a certain point just figure it is just too much trouble and too slow. That is a trade-off with rail transit. You get a consistent speed, but driving on the freeway when traffic is moving is certainly faster. Note that the Gold Line, except for the half-mile at 20 mph in Highland Park, is about the same speed at the Red Line. My standard example of one mile between stations in 2 minutes = 30 mph. While the freeway can be 75 mph or 15 mph. The trade-off you're recommending is fewer station stops for faster rail time. That's good if the remaining stations are conveniently located for you, but may not help your door-to-door trip time if fewer stations result in more time for local connections. Remember the limited-stop experiment on the Gold Line? It didn't save that much time, inconvenienced passengers, and was discontinued. I wouldn't consider cars in rush hour racing down the freeway. 10pm at night is one thing but 8:30 in the morning is quite another. If the mass transit network cannot be competitive then... well then its just not competitive. There should be no trade off, there doesn't need to be one. I'm recommending that there be concurrent express service available, concurrent on the red or purple lines would not limit local service for others. Regarding service on the gold line your right it doesn't make much of a difference primarily because its at-grade and runs slow regardless, thats why I don't support at-grade rail for commuting. In regards to the Gold Line experiment, I thought it was a horrible idea to take away local service in favor of express. I think both are necessary and that is why I've always recommended the double tracking in each direction for the red and purple lines. 20 mph in Highland Park, I think we are going to see the same next to Dorsey High.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 20, 2008 3:48:34 GMT -8
I sometimes work in hollywood near hollywood and vine, I took the gold to red line a few times for work however eventually came to the conclusion that it was to[o] slow and stopped using it. I feel that if I'm going to have to deal with a slow at-grade lines like the gold line for one leg of my commute then I expect that I'll at least be able to make up the difference riding a fast express line for the rest of the trip, however when its all added together the red line is still to slow and my car wins this race every time, even in the middle of rush hour. To have to do slow mode after slow mode doesn't just make me frustrated, it makes me take my car. I believe most people that take their cars take them because their trips would require taking multiple slow modes, and at a certain point just figure it is just too much trouble and too slow. When I read this, it makes me think of how undeveloped and un-dense Los Angeles really is and how more efficient our freeway system is to the rail transit. If we had more density, less deadzones, we'd have more traffic, and more incentive for you to take Metro rail over your car. That's the problem with LA, we fight an uphill battle with freeways. We built the best darn freeway network in the world, how do you have public transit compete with it without the added density? I agree LA has a more spread out structure then most other cities. Its more of a Lineal city then a centralized city. And that is the main problem with the transit network we are building. We have built a transit network that works great for a city that has one centralized core (most major destinations clustered in the center). LA isn't this type of city, it has multiple cores that have stretched across long transit routes namely wilshire blvd. With distances like this a different mode needs to be envisioned something beyond bus's and local rail lines (that are only efficient along short distances). That's why I have been so passionate about the idea of express rail lines. They function very much like the mode you just praised...freeways, they are basically the mass transit equivalent and that is what LA is missing west of downtown. If lines like these were created we would be able to shuttle across the city quickly to one regional destination after another, opposed to the current modes (which are the equivalent to surface streets) which will force you to inch across the grid at a much slower rate.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 20, 2008 4:03:29 GMT -8
Saadi, you are your own worst enemy when you are trying to make your case.
What I have gained from you is this line of thinking: Mass transit has failed to be useful for most of the population. Therefore we need more of it.
Well, I am perplexed. What's more is that when I gave you concrete examples of where transit is working and how to build on success, you kneecap them.
We're far beyond the point where we need to work off terms like "fast" and "convenient". We need to define "fast" and "convenient" in numerical terms. Then, we need to figure out where the strongest corridors for ridership are.
Where do you get numbers for those? Well, Metro has reams of data based upon actual ridership practice. Here's a crazy thought: Why not actually consider using them?
Oh, and you have not yet addressed how Metrolink, the commuter rail operation, is supposed to apply its operational model to rights of way it must build.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 20, 2008 7:12:59 GMT -8
Its important to distinguish collector stations (stations in residential areas, where people are starting their trips) from destination stations (stations in employment or retail areas, where people are going). Collector stations can be spaced much farther apart (~1-2 miles spacing) than destination stations (.5-1 mile spacing). A good example is Western, which is skipped on both the Green Line and the Expo Line. In L.A., it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between collector stations and destinations, because unlike other cities we are less centralized. This makes planning the rail lines a little more difficult. But in general, long distance rail lines should have fewer stops, to reduce overall travel time. No one talks about the history, the who, what, where, when, why and how much. We hear the same banal tropes and see the same calls to make transit more car-like. Understand this: Transit is not a blank slate. We are not building a system from scratch. We have to seek out the information available to us now (ridership statistics, trip patterns, funding sources) and figure out ways to get better results. I totally agree. I get so sick of hearing people say that L.A. is not like other cities, therefore we have to do everything differently. I just don't get that argument. Of course we are unique, but that doesn't mean that the goals of transit here are different, or that fundamental rules of transit planning don't apply here. We are not reinventing the wheel here: the history and science of transit planning are well-established.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 20, 2008 8:07:34 GMT -8
There's no Western Station on the Green Line (even though Southwest College makes a good case for a stop to be there) while there's one being planned at Western for Expo. Maybe you're thinking of Normandie.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 20, 2008 13:59:53 GMT -8
Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 21, 2008 2:41:51 GMT -8
Saadi, you are your own worst enemy when you are trying to make your case. What I have gained from you is this line of thinking: Mass transit has failed to be useful for most of the population. Therefore we need more of it. No what I am stating is the Los Angeles mass transit system has failed to be useful for most of the population. Therefore it is important that when we build future lines we should take into consideration why the past modes have not been successful, and build with a criteria that addresses the needs and complains of this large portion of the public that wants to use mass transit but will not in its current state. The three main complaints I can think of are: 1. the system does not take me to where I need to go (example large portions of west LA and Orange Counties do not have fast commuter rail) 2. the system is not convenient (we have to many modes and transfers necessary for one trip). If someone is going to be forced to take a slow local mode the least that could occur is limit the amount of transfers one would need to take on this trip, to have slow local mode then have transfer to another slow local mode is truly what is killing this system. One extra point in regard to convenience is also trains should run all night even if the service was one train every 45 minutes it would be better then the current schedule where we have a 4 hour service gap in the middle of the night. 3. trips are too slow ( building only local routes that require riders to inch across this city grid is not fast enough to get these people out of their cars, these lines have to HONESTLY be competitive with auto times). In regards to speed I believe that future lines need to compensate for the slowness of current lines in the system, so that the average speed of the old and new lines together is substantially higher. The problem I ran into with my commute on the gold to red line was that the red line was faster but not fast enough to compensate for the slowness of the gold line leg of the commute, as a result I do not use it. If the red line leg of the commute was twice as fast it would have been more enticing to me as a rider. Regardless of whether you think these complaints are justified, they are true reflection of the reasoning behind of a majority of the people that refuse to use the current mass transit network. The more of these complaints that are addressed each time a line is built the more new ridership the system will take on.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 21, 2008 3:03:49 GMT -8
I totally agree. I get so sick of hearing people say that L.A. is not like other cities, therefore we have to do everything differently. I just don't get that argument. LA is very different from other cities. Most cities have one centralized city core, LA does not. The LA transit network which is primarily dependent on these local modes would work fine in a city with a smaller denser core where distances between destinations are shorter. However this is not LA, we have a region that is more of a lineal city where destinations are spread across the region with longer distances, as a result the idea of having a system that is largely dependent on local modes quickly becomes inefficient. That is why I've said LA needs a different solution then what we have currently been building. We need to be building a system that will quickly connect LA's multiple cores and the only solution that is going to do this for our mass transit network is having limited stop express lines going to every part of the region.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 21, 2008 10:50:00 GMT -8
The three main complaints I can think of are: 1. the system does not take me to where I need to go (example large portions of west LA and Orange Counties do not have fast commuter rail) Hell, they don't have ANY rail and very limited service fast regional buses from the outlying areas. Let's get those pieces in place first. Another factor is the design of some of the corridor lines. A good example is the Red Line, despite the full grade separation, it loses key points by not including a stop at the Hollywood Bowl if a stop was there this would significantly add ridership during the summertime due to more patrons from outlying areas avoiding going through Hollywood and the Cauhenga Pass to reach the Bowl. Since we have so many destinations/centers spread out no matter how fast the connections, you will still need to make transfers! The key is to make those transfers faster, more convienent and more efficent! Timed connections at transit centers and proper monitoring and dispatching is important to a sprawled transit system. Again that sounds like the reduced performance in the transfer and the lack of a frequent connection. If the Red Line operated on a 5 minute frequency and the transfer at Union Station was like the one at 7th Street Metro Center that would reduce travel times significantly without having to spend money YET on an "express track". I wonder, how much does it cost to park in Hollywood? One other point that has been neglected in the entire conversation is the cost of parking. I gurantee you that the cost of parking surrounding the areas in question become too expensive to maintain from end to end that folks will look for an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 21, 2008 19:03:27 GMT -8
we have the Q train from canal to 57st, there are 4 STOPS with a distance of 3.42 miles this line can complete this distance in 11 minutes anytime of day, rush hour, noon or whatever. now lets look at the the 720 rapid from western to La Cienega roughly the same distance at about 3.86 miles (a little longer) IMPORTANT POINT ONLY "2 STOPS". at 530 AM the 720 can travel this distance in 12 minutes (close in time but not providing the same level of service). at 620 PM the 720 can travel this distance no faster then 22 minutes. (TWICE AS LONG AS THE Q WITH TWO LESS STOPS). When it comes to commuting at-grade bus's will never match the efficiency of grade separated rail. Saadi, let's do some NYC street math for a second. Here's the stops for the (Q) route that you've mentioned above: * 57th Street * 42nd Street * 34th Street * 14th Street * Canal StreetIn Manhattan 1 mile is equal to 10 blocks East-west or 20 blocks north-south, for example the distance from 34th Street to 14th Street is 20 blocks or 1 mile. So the stop spacing for this express portion is about a stop every mile. How is LA building the "local" rail lines? They are a stop every mile mimicing NYC best Express service in a dense built up environment. In fact our Wilshire subway between the suggested trip length (Western to La Cienega) will take 7-9 minutes depending on station locations.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 24, 2008 3:52:14 GMT -8
No what I am stating is the Los Angeles mass transit system has failed to be useful for most of the population. Therefore it is important that when we build future lines we should take into consideration why the past modes have not been successful Fine. You are so enamored with your failure narrative, you'll get a simple answer: we stop. We got a chance to run with the ball and dropped it. You, on the one hand, see nothing but failure and your solution is ... to compound our failure. You're probably the only one not even realizing your logical fallacy. Alternatively, my suggestion is to take that 7 percent modal share and leverage it to build on success. The number 7 equals: - Over 1 million bus boardings, the second busiest in the nation
- Going from no rail in 1990 to the seventh busiest rail system in less than 20 years. When Eastside Gold Line and Expo Line are operational, L.A. may overtake BART ridership.
- A commuter rail system that has now cracked 50,000 weekday boardings despite single tracking and no clock headways.
We have a lot of momentum in our favor. When transit service is offered, be it bus, urban rail or commuter rail, people will use it. That is how you sell a system. Where do you go with this information? - Find L.A.'s busiest bus corridors and set up a rail network to closely pattern where existing ridership is. Not every busy bus line needs to be replaced by a rail line, but busy bus lines close to one another can have one rail line that would draw from parallel lines as far as 1-2 miles away.
- Once that urban rail grid is established, it would alleviate some pressure from those busy bus lines. The buses can then be placed on services with low frequencies to boost them, especially for lines that intersect a rail station. Also, for places where there is ridership projected between 10,000-20,000 boardings, run busways along freeways or build bus lanes on reclaimed medians.
- Expand our commuter rail rights of way to allow for double tracking and sidings, and offer true clock headways on Metrolink. Set a goal of hourly weekday service, 2-hour service on Saturdays and 3-hour service on Sundays. This may sound unimpressive, but remember that weekend Metrolink trains tend to attract families.
It's also a proven formula, since it's built around where we know riders are going. With the service improvements, new ones will follow. Why? Because they have. Quibble with this, but the only case you're hurting is your own.
|
|