|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 13, 2008 20:31:28 GMT -8
Operations memoLots of news in this memo. Read the whole thing if you're interested in upcoming equipment allocations, headways, and yard locations for the light rail lines. Some of the highlights that I noticed: 2009/20101. Blue line will go to 6 minute peak headways for the entire line. All trains go to Long Beach, not split with Willow. Currently the headway is 5.5/11. 2. Expo will have 12 minute peak headways to match the blue line. Metro indicates that Expo has to be a multiple of the blue line headway. The trains will be the same length so that blue line trains can be re-signed as Expo and vice versa. This will be especially critical when Expo fully opens and runs at 6-minute peak headways. 3. No expansion of the blue line yard to handle the Expo cars as was previously planned. Metro purchased land east of Long Beach Ave near Washington to store up to 15 cars. No maintenance at this yard, just cleaning and storage. 4. The gold line will get all of the P2550's except 5 for the blue line. Expo will get none and will instead get P865's (wtf??). 16 of the P2000's will be reassigned to the blue line. 5. The green line will go to 6 minute headways from 7.5. Still 2-car trains. 20131. Possibly grade separate Flower/Washington intersection! 2. 6 minute peak headways for Expo 3. 3-car trains for the gold line 2016-Expo phase 21. 6 minute peak headways for the gold line 2. New yard for Expo 20301. 5-minute peak headways and 3 car trains on all light rail lines including Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 14, 2008 11:42:17 GMT -8
Operations memoLots of news in this memo. 20131. Possibly grade separate Flower/Washington intersection! With the design of the Regional Connector's 1st/Alameda crossing and how they are ingeniously planning on separating Alameda from the trains. My guess is that they'll be doing the same thing by separating the turning trains from westbound Washington Blvd traffic from Grand to Figueroa. This would simplify the crossing, allows Flower Street to operate as a quick entry for the Harbor Fwy which improves the speeds for Expo and the Blue Line. This obviously adds additional capacity to Washington Blvd by allowing traffic to run through. Since currently no left turns are allowed at the Washington/Flower intersection. My initial guess would be a cost of $100-125 million in escalated dollars, I'm thinking on how complex the construction may be and the current escalations in materials the latter value may hold. But don't let the cost effect us thinking that this will never get built with this possible design and the one for the 1st/Alameda Downtown Regional connector my guess is that there is a greater chance of using state and or federal highway money to build this portion of the project. Why is that important, highway money towards transit means another funding source to improve the likelyhood of this getting built as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 14, 2008 12:29:00 GMT -8
The biggest problem with lowering Washington is that would get in the way of any eventual subway options for Flower and Washington. Maybe a subway for that stretch is not a realistic option anyway. And just to be clear when you compare to 1st/Alameda you're not suggesting that they would construct a wye are you? I think that it would just be a lowering of Washington.
Also we would lose a turn lane as I think that left turns are currently allowed onto Washington when heading south on Flower unless there are signs missing. I saw people turning left there yesterday and I didn't see any signs. That probably won't be happening once Expo opens assuming that it's even supposed to be happening now.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 14, 2008 16:39:57 GMT -8
The biggest problem with lowering Washington is that would get in the way of any eventual subway options for Flower and Washington. Maybe a subway for that stretch is not a realistic option anyway. It isn't without severely affecting Blue Line operations along ALL of Washington Blvd which automatically makes this idea a non-starter. This grade separation is more for Expo then for the Blue Line long term. Becuase if capacity goes over board on the Blue Line, it's better to build this option on a new corridor. One corridor that comes to my mind is along 11th or 12th Street from Flower to the Blue Line right-of-way (which extends under the 10 freeway) and has stations at LA Live/South Park, Fashion District and one at either San Pedro or Central to redevelop most of the old warehouse and industrial lands into new residential and new commercial that can pay for a small fraction of the costs of such a project. Once that is built the Expo Line capacity automatically doubles without having to built a single foot of tunnel down Flower south of 12th/Pico since a grade separation is in place at Washington and the signals can allow an LRV train to operate on 2-3 minute headways. No I don't think it's even remotely feasible to build a wye at that intersection. You're right there is currently a left-turn lane, but I believe once Expo is in operation that left turn is eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 15, 2008 14:08:31 GMT -8
That makes sense. And in a delayed reaction I only realized this morning that if Metro plans on running the P865 cars on Expo then that means that the P865 cars are not as incompatible with the newer light rail lines as we were led to believe several years ago. I'm referring to the article posted by Elson on June 25th at 11:29 pm here. Unless Expo was spec'd to be compatible with the blue line which would make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Nov 19, 2008 18:08:20 GMT -8
Why is the Gold line getting new cars anyway, shouldn't the new cars go to the line with the oldest fleet?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 19, 2008 20:25:47 GMT -8
I'm thinking it's a test phase to "break in" the new trains, and give Metro engineers a chance to get familiar with them.
The Goldline is less used, so any malfunction or problems won't affect too many people.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Nov 19, 2008 22:06:55 GMT -8
Not only does measure R provide for more rail miles, it provides for increased headways (by increasing storage space dramatically). Now that measure R has passed and $150 million for a yard for the Gold Line has been provided along with the Azusa extension and a DTC looks a lot more likely, I think Metro should update their pessemistic memo and realize that this 100 car yard in Irwindale will completely relieve Midway by 2013, since thats when the extension should open and not spend money for the tail track extension by 2013. With a DTC online by 2020 (now I'm being pesssemistic, I'm hoping 2017). Also, Expo 2 (and its 2 year acceleration) will include a Santa Monica yard between Centinela and Stewart which will provide relief for up to 60 cars for Expo with its severe capacity problem that much sooner (according to a memo someone posted here about a week ago)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 19, 2008 22:37:22 GMT -8
According to this operations handout 8 Breda cars are in service with four more expected before the end of the year. Other interesting items are: 1. A trial seat removal program that could lead to the removal of up to 1,169 seats from trains. 2. Better signal prioritization for the blue line on Flower being worked out with LADOT. 3. Platform barriers for the area between cars will be tested at Union Station, Highland Park, Del Mar, and Lake. 4. There's a list of planned special service for the next few months including running trains all night on all lines. (IIRC last year was just the red and gold.) I'm not really for the seat removal. Especially on the blue line where so many people travel long distances. There's almost always standing room although sometimes 1 or 2 cars can get full.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 20, 2008 1:47:38 GMT -8
I wonder if the seat removal is due for the lack of space available for bicycles. I know that's becoming quite a big issue lately for US transportation....
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 20, 2008 2:35:46 GMT -8
I wonder if the seat removal is due for the lack of space available for bicycles. I know that's becoming quite a big issue lately for US transportation.... Yup. Metro includes little icons of bicycles on the diagram of displaced seating and Metro cites that as the reason in last month's (October) operations report. It's good to finally see Metro take some action for bicyclists. Bicycling and using Metro is a great idea for traffic relief, less pollution, physical fitness, and making good time but can be very difficult given the current Metro system. Buses provide too few bike racks and the rail lines still have the silly no-bike rule on some lines during peak hours.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 20, 2008 10:41:09 GMT -8
I think Metro should update their pessemistic memo and realize that this 100 car yard in Irwindale will completely relieve Midway by 2013, since thats when the extension should open and not spend money for the tail track extension by 2013. They should leave the memo alone because the numbers in and of themselves will kick start the board to not think politically and think of the good of the agency and accelerate getting it accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Nov 20, 2008 19:14:00 GMT -8
I'd take that memo with a large grain of salt. Among other things, it does not consider the Downtown Connector, which would have a huge impact on operations and seems sufficiently likely to get built in the timeframe considered. Also, it doesn't consider the fact that Expo II will come with its own maintenance facility, which will at least relieve some of the pressure. Having a large yard in Irwindale will pretty much take care of the Blue/Expo/Gold system, and each radius even gets its own yard: Expo the one in Santa Monica, the Long Beach Line in Carson, the Pasadena/Azusa line in Irwindale, and the Eastside line will then get the Midway yard. One important issue that the memo does raise is the storage capacity on the Green Line, which is apparently quite limited, and it doesn't seem like there's much room for expansion at their current facility. In the long term, that's going to be problematic with extensions and increased service. Perhaps that might even be a justification for a Norwalk extension, since there are at least a couple viable sites there and it would make operations easier to have yards on either end of the line.
|
|