|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 13, 2007 20:32:07 GMT -8
Disregarding the time factor between the Gold Line and the 260 bus (since it seems to be fairly close), let's consider the comfort factor--light rail doesn't have all the stops, starts, turns and bouncing over potholes and gutters that a bus has.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Sept 27, 2007 17:35:10 GMT -8
This C-shaped line is kinda weird. I'm going to be served by the Atlantic Station, and I travel to Pasasdena about once a month, and it would be nice if there was a north-south line along Atlantic or Garfield.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 27, 2007 18:48:44 GMT -8
You're gonna have to take a bus dude. That will be more efficient for you than the Gold Line.
I lived in London for a summer, and sometimes the buses were more convenient than their Underground...that's how it is sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 28, 2007 23:38:42 GMT -8
Suggest that to Metro if you haven't done so already. Limited stop trips or Metro Rapid service along the existing Line 260 corridor I think might be the best way to go since this line is already pretty direct. Metro has proposed starting Line 762, the Atlantic Boulevard Rapid, this December. It will run from dawn to dusk weekdays only. Bad news: Line 260 will be broken at East L.A. College. The northern segment will be Line 260, the southern segment Line 262.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Sept 29, 2007 10:05:18 GMT -8
If you agree, suggest to Metro when the public hearing period opens that Lines 260 and 262 overlap each other between the East LA College area and Olympic Bl as there's many east/west transfer points in East LA including the Gold Line. I think that should help, but I also believe that this local line needs a split to maintain on time performance since this line takes over 2 hours for an end-to-end trip. On time performance and timetables may not seem like a big deal for daytime riders due to service frequency, but at nights where the bus runs every 30 minutes and the rider needs a timetable to see when the next bus arrives, it would probably be a good idea to give this line some changes to improve its on time performance, and splitting the 2 hour long bus line may not be such a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 29, 2007 23:15:44 GMT -8
If you agree, suggest to Metro when the public hearing period opens that Lines 260 and 262 overlap each other between the East LA College area and Olympic Bl as there's many east/west transfer points in East LA including the Gold Line. The time passed for that. It was earlier this summer. I would have suggested terminating Line 260 in San Marino at Huntington Drive, but with service from East L.A. College to there running every 30 minutes, and weekdays only. It would operate to points south every 15 minutes. Lines 261 would operate every 15 minutes between East L.A. College and Huntington Drive, then running on Oak Knoll and Lake avenues. This would have made necessary canceling lines 180 and 485 along Lake and using the buses for this line.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 30, 2007 15:58:37 GMT -8
If you agree, suggest to Metro when the public hearing period opens that Lines 260 and 262 overlap each other between the East LA College area and Olympic Bl as there's many east/west transfer points in East LA including the Gold Line. The time passed for that. It was earlier this summer. I would have suggested terminating Line 260 in San Marino at Huntington Drive, but with service from East L.A. College to there running every 30 minutes, and weekdays only. It would operate to points south every 15 minutes. Lines 261 would operate every 15 minutes between East L.A. College and Huntington Drive, then running on Oak Knoll and Lake avenues. This would have made necessary canceling lines 180 and 485 along Lake and using the buses for this line. The overlap idea got extended to Whittier Blvd which makes sense. But the idea of extending up Lake Avenue and cancelling the 485 would be political suicide because it hits at least two LA County Offices that supplies the ridership for the 485.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Sept 30, 2007 16:06:35 GMT -8
But why would they want to split up 260 in the first place? Ridership problems? Line too long?? Why can't we just have a full Atlantic line and an Alantic Rapid?
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Sept 30, 2007 20:04:24 GMT -8
You beat me to it! Line 485 is the only local-plus bus line that deviates from the El Monte Busway to the I-710 north in the CSU LA area. It also provides a direct connection to the CSU LA Station and the USC Medical Center via the El Monte Busway.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 2, 2007 13:02:38 GMT -8
But why would they want to split up 260 in the first place? Ridership problems? Line too long?? Why can't we just have a full Atlantic line and an Alantic Rapid? This split was for scheduling problems for a long line on the Northern end that is congested areas and contains a number of turns at busy intersections. The bulk of the riders who are currently riding the bus for long distances only get on and off and the busier transfer points, this is why the Rapid will be introduced. In addition, there is a noticable ridership shift as to where folks board the bus to their destination by fixing this problem they can improve reliabilty of the route and improve the service without having to add additional buses/drivers.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Oct 2, 2007 18:43:11 GMT -8
OH... I see..
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 9, 2008 18:49:43 GMT -8
Yesterday I went to the annual Elvis Birthday Bash, a musical event featuring numerous artists performing songs recorded by "The King". As usual I took the Gold Line to LA and the Red Line to Hollywood and Vine. The inbound Gold Line trip saw a respectable passenger load, with people getting on and off at various stops. I noted at Highland Park a lot of people getting off a standing-load train. On the way back I chatted with three young women who had gone to the same area to see "Wicked" at the Pantages; turns out they found this route a handy way to get from the San Gabriel Valley to Hollywood. Regardless of what the naysayers say, this line is well-used.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 29, 2008 1:06:58 GMT -8
Another trip on the Gold Line for musical entertainment--Thursday night I took the train to Highland Park for a performance by the Adam Marsland Chaos Band featuring Evie Sands. Once again, plenty of people riding, even on the 10:25 pm out of Highland Park. I noted that passengers boarded and alighted at the various stops, indicating that it's not just a Pasadena to LA Union Station commuter run.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 29, 2008 6:45:48 GMT -8
Much of the concerns/problems with figuring out the routing of the Connector is the possibility of having to demolish the Little Tokyo station.
I'm a Westsider--the Pasadena and Eastside Gold Lines aren't things my local brain can relate to as well as I wish I could. My philosophy might be shortsighted and foolish, but it's based on an understanding that these Gold Lines will have to (despite their recent construction) be rebuilt in order to be aligned with an ideal Connector.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 29, 2008 10:37:30 GMT -8
I'm an Eastside native, born and raised, and have a very full knowledge of everything from Pasadena down to East LA, which incidentally is everywhere the Gold Line goes. That said, I've been all over the Westside, especially in recent years going to school and living near there. For two years I commuted from Mt. Washing to Vermont/Venice via Gold Line, Red Line, and bus and know a little bit about the ridership patterns first hand. There is still going to be at least a little bit of demand for going from Highland Park to East LA but most people in East LA actually are trying to get to their jobs on the Westside like millions of other Angelenos. Thus routing Expo to Eastside makes the most sense. Eastside riders don't really have a need to get to Union Station so its ok that this routing would miss that.
Pasadena, however, is also a big job center and its important that Metrolink riders from Say OC or Riverside can take it to LAUS and then Gold to jobs in Pasadena, but also ideally, the Gold line doesn't need to go to LAUS. People in Pasadena want to go to the Valley and the Westside and also very importantly downtown (real downtown) especially the further east in Pasadena you get. Let's build Foothill now! If it went straight down in a tunnel under Chinatown to Bunker Hill then it would be an alternative to the 110 for large chunks of the day rather than just the most crowded of rush hours. Luckily the diversion to LAUS wont take too much time off if the routing is efficient and that is why Alternative six is the only acceptable option. The other alignments are too slow and have an extra pointless station and besides, with all the big events that go on downtown, at grade light rail is impractical. Very few people are going to be affected by a closed Little Tokyo station for a year and will recieve a more well-located high quality subway station at 2nd/Los Angeles/Central. So my preffered routing routing for 2018 (by which time I hope DTC and Crenshaw are open) and eventually 2025 (by which time I expect Purple extension to Westwood and LAX and South Bay Galleria extensions) are these:
Blue Line: Memorial Park-Long Beach Transit Mall. During off peak hours, the trains would make the full 90 minute trip. During rush hours since you can't crowd the street running in Long Beach too much there would be two overlapping trains. From memorial Park to Willow and from Union Station to Transit Mall, just as every other train goes to Long Beach or Willow during rush hour, every other train would go Pasadena-Willow or Union Station Long Beach, since I doubt there is a rush hour demand for a 90 minute trip from Pasadena to Long Beach. The 710 even with bad traffic is going to be more direct. There is room directly north of Memorial Park for a layover track and switch in the open cut even with the substation there. There would be some minimal capital cost for this so that turnaround at Memorial Park can be effective
Aqua Line: Santa Monica to Pomona/Atlantic. This one is easy and super high ridership. Eastside people get to some Westside jobs. Westside people get to downtown jobs. Downtown people get to Santa Monica. The rest of the jobs are reachable by 7th/Metro transfer to Red Line down Wilshire. Gets South LA connected with West LA and East LA and Downtown LA. I like it
Gold Line: Azusa to Downtown. I propose that the Central Library station become the terminus for this Gold Line. It is too close to 7th/Metro to make any sense at all and just slows down the two through lines. The Foothill tracks can terminate in the middle while the outer tracks would go through. It would be a two island platform situation similar to express stations on the IND lines in NYC. In fact it would operate identically to 168th St. on the A and C with C trains terminating in the middle. Off peak Blue and Aqua trains would still stop here at off-peak times but not during rush. People could easily get off at 7th/Metro and walk a measly three blocks
Brown Line: Expo/Crenshaw (hopefully La/Brea Wilshire) to South Bay Galleria. It would run down to the Green Line and then take over the El Segundo section which will be extended to the Galleria.
Green Line: Norwalk Metrolink to Lincoln/Sepulveda. It would turn north onto Crenshaw line for a mile to the big Century/Aviation multimodal station and then west onto TTCs proposed routing to Lincoln/Sepulveda
Ridership on all lines is going to soar through the roof with these alignments and the temporary Little Tokyo station can get the shaft (but can still be used for late night East LA-Highland Park services) because the double portals will be infintessimately better than trains literally crossing 1st/Alameda every 45 seconds. Even the Green Line will benefit from this connector. Pasadena riders are now just one transfer from LAX (hopefully extended by that time). Under this scenario every line would be one transfer away from every other except Red-Green, Aqua-Green and Blue-Brown, all of which are parallel services anyway and far apart.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 1, 2008 5:28:50 GMT -8
My question with these long lines, based on my experience with the Blue Line, which is more of a collector in the morning toward downtown LA remains capacity.
If a train from Santa Monica to East LA is already packed by the time it reaches Vermont, where's the space for the folk who are boarding between Vermont and Overland station and traveling to Santa Monica/Westwood? At the very least we'd have to upgrade to 4-car trains.
Then when you start talking headways, I really don't think people understand what 3-4 min headways will do to some of these streets.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Mar 1, 2008 8:46:53 GMT -8
Why have I never heard people complaining about the Vernon Station or the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park Station?
Obviously not everyone is going downtown, so there is some space for people to get on.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Mar 1, 2008 10:36:57 GMT -8
I agree about headways and car lengths which is why Expo design is clearly an issue. At the least we would have 4 car trains for sure. Looking at things, there is room for it everywhere on the Eastside except 1st/Utah. Perhaps you could let me know of its feasability on Expo but I would think everywhere but 23rd is doable. Remember, the station doesn't need to be fully extended to the end of the 4th car, you could just operate the doors for the front half and have announcements like "Next stop is Vermont. Those in the last car, please move to the front of the car. Proxima estacion es Vermont. Personas en el ultimo coche, por favor moven al frente del coche"
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 1, 2008 14:47:12 GMT -8
23rd's not a problem.
Trousdale is the problem, since the station is the area where it comes out of the trench. (I'm not a big fan of the station though anyway).
La Brea might be a challenge depending on the length of the overpass, but I doubt it.
7th Street Metro will need it's platform lengths extended. But so much modification needs to be done there you'll likely see that station completely upgraded by the time Phase 2 is operational.
Really we should be designing all of our lines at least for 4 car platforms or in a way that they are easily expandable to 4 car platforms.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Mar 1, 2008 15:38:30 GMT -8
Damien, why would this be a problem if it's not a problem on the Blue Line or the Gold Line? What makes Expo different?
Also, can we stop posting about Expo in threads that aren't about Expo? I'll stop posting about Expo in this thread as well.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 1, 2008 16:54:44 GMT -8
Not everyone is going to get a seat at rush hour. Just like the blue line, the A train, or a bus in Seattle. That's just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 2, 2008 6:10:19 GMT -8
My question with these long lines, based on my experience with the Blue Line, which is more of a collector in the morning toward downtown LA remains capacity. If a train from Santa Monica to East LA is already packed by the time it reaches Vermont, where's the space for the folk who are boarding between Vermont and Overland station and traveling to Santa Monica/Westwood? At the very least we'd have to upgrade to 4-car trains. There are two trains of thought here in regards to this issue; 1) The interior layout of the trains 2) The width of the doorways. Now the next set of LRV's can be equipped with fewer seats with either a longitudinal seating or a 2+1 width and provide more room for standees in the aisles and doorways. If the doors are made 6-8" wider it would improve circulation within the train and hold more standing capacity because it's human nature in many metro systems for passengers to stand by the doorways in a crowded train. Another factor with our LRV's are operator cabins. In our old discussion board this was discussed for a long period as to the amount of passenger room that will increase by removing the operator cabs. I think the next set of LRV's should remove some of these cabins and then train the now single ended units into a 2 LRV car unit. With those two combined factors we can increase capacity by at least 35% because your adding more passenger space at the same frequency. Now I'm not saying don't build 4 car train platforms, on the contrary I see a huge need for them, but this is a measure that can be used to eliminate all low cost stop gap options until they have no choice but to build the system to 4 car capacity.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 2, 2008 13:05:13 GMT -8
shawn,
See I'm not talking about people having seats, I'm talking about people being able to get on the train. (LRV capacity on trains with long distance trip riders).
I can see a lot of westbound morning Expo-Eastside trains being packed (both seats and standing room) by the time they reach Vermont basing this on my a) understanding of why the Transit Service Policy recommends 100% grade separation for lines serving over 50K b) understanding of the anticipated station boardings and likely destinations c) the headway limitations given the current and future street traffic on Expo Phase 1 & 2 (wish I knew more about Eastside) d) personal experience on northbound morning rush hour Blue Lines, and as I think about it more, the Green Line in downtown Boston
Additionally, the likelihood of packed trains with long-distance riders only increases as traffic on our streets gets worse slowing down comparable crosstown bus lines.
For example, if the 720 ends up taking 1 hr 45 mins to get from Whittier/Atlantic to Wilshire/Westwood far more riders would just hop on Eastside-Expo at 3rd/Atlantic, and transfer to the Westwood bus north to Wilshire.
Jerard offers some solutions that have been offered before in the forum, and I agree those are some good temporary solutions.
More ambitiously, and less realistically, would be to use the Expo right-of-way east of Figueroa as siding and having lines operate from Expo Park/Vermont to Santa Monica and vice versa, during morning peak hours. I don't really see a solution to evening eastbound traffic though, but it's probably less of a problem. I need to think about it more.
Back to the cabin modifications, I'm a big fan of longitudinal seating as well, but I'm also interested in whether standing time has a relationship to ridership. What got me thinking about this what antonio mentioning a 90 min end-to-end time on a Pasadena Gold-Blue line. It would be good to know if there's a certain amount of time people are willing to stand on a bus/train before ridership is effected, and if so, by how much.
Oh and I think if we're expecting longer distance riders and want to use LRVs we need far more comfortable seats, like the artics, not the current seats.
Tony,
Which problem are you referring to? We've discussed many here.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Mar 2, 2008 13:22:48 GMT -8
I agree with Damien about building our lines with 4 car platforms or expandable to 4 car platforms. Despite peoples concern with block lengths being an issue with the Blue Line precluding 4 car trains, it isn't. In the area of narrow streets between San Pedro and Grand, three car trains already exceed block lengths but since they have signal priority they never stop in those areas and its not an issue. It would be the same with four car trains. There are issues regarding the 4 car trains in the Long Beach section but that could easily be solved by running 3 car trains to Long Beach and 4 car trains to Willow. Certain stations will also need to be double platformed on the Blue Line, such as Pico and Florence. Damien has already adressed 4 car trains on Expo and from my scouting and knowledge of the area, only the 1st/Utah Station on Eastside will be difficult to lengthen (although i dont know how big the station boxes at Soto and Boyle are). On the Pasadena Gold Line the biggest problem is going to be the Lincoln Cypress station. 4 car trains can fit at Mission but the platform will no be able to fully accomodate 4 cars. The DTC MUST be designed for four or even five car lengths. The Muni tunnel is designed for something like 8 or 10 car lengths even though only two or max three regularly use it
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 2, 2008 13:44:16 GMT -8
I agree as long as we keep headways at 4-5 mins on the Blue Line the 4 car platform length isn't a problem for the Washington Blvd section. Both of the blocks at Grand and San Pedro are long enough to accommodate them.
Bring down the headways to 3 mins and a drastic alteration in the way signal priority operations in the portion would be needed (priority at some intersections and not others). Operating 3 min headways without a DTC is pretty much a non-starter, as is closing some of the streets on Washington Blvd.
Totally agree DTC needs to be designed for 4-car platforms.
And I long for the day of 5-car LRVs. :-)
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 19, 2008 12:59:05 GMT -8
Getting back to the Gold Line as it is today--I went to LA Union Station to pick up some timetables, and found the LAST parking space at Sierra Madre Villa. It was on the sun-drenched top deck. Somebody must be riding it! It will be interesting to see how crowded SMV is after the Foothill Extension goes into service. Regarding four-car trains: Sacramento uses them regularly in rush hours because they still have some single-track sections. San Diego sometimes runs four cars for special events. Haven't been to Salt Lake City lately, but I recall seeing a photo of a 3 or 4 car train there.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 19, 2008 18:42:16 GMT -8
According to Metro "Ridership counting", the weekdays draw about 22,000 rides. That's almost near Orange line numbers. The trains are only packed for 3 hours in morning and evening rush hour. In between rush hours, it's almost empty. And on weekends, few people ride, when they can drive on un-congested weekend traffic.
The housing density and job density needs to increase along the line.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 26, 2008 10:47:29 GMT -8
Today is the fifth anniversary of the public opening of the Pasadena Gold Line on July 26, 2003. See my post today for photos of opening weekend and before at light-rail.blogspot.com. Enjoy!
|
|
snuffy
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by snuffy on Aug 1, 2008 18:03:47 GMT -8
the train is very crowded specially during the rush hr but Metro won't add third car on Gold Line which they should. Snuffy
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 2, 2008 4:26:29 GMT -8
The housing density and job density needs to increase along the line. How exactly will this help? The problem with the Gold Line is that this is a line where the train has little capacity to really transform its surrounding neighborhoods. Northeast L.A. has healthy levels of bus ridership, but the hilly terrain prevents most neighborhoods from connecting to it. Cypress Park and Glassell Park have to go south to Lincoln Heights for their nearest access to the Gold Line. There are very few direct east-west passages. South Pasadena is strident in its demands to keep its small-town charm. Considering that it has been able to force a freeway underground, you won't see it looking much more different than it does now. In Pasadena, the east-west part of the line runs in the median of the 210 freeway. Sure, there are some developments -- I've taken a few pictures of some of them near Sierra Madre Villa and Lake stations -- but even though there's a rail line, the land use receives its feedback from the freeway. Most of the land use will still be optimized toward vehicle use.
|
|