|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 18, 2012 12:45:40 GMT -8
Thanks, that's pretty much the same thing that the Metro trip planner told me.
Trying to tie this loosely to our discussion of Blue Line overcrowding, in this particular instance, there's a definite trade off. The Harbor Freeway buses would be faster than the Blue Line for my purposes, but the weekend bus schedule is less than ideal (and I like the Blue Line). However, in the past I have used the park-and-ride in Long Beach to get to a job downtown. If I were to do that commute again on a regular basis, I would take the Blue Line again unless a better alternative presented itself.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 18, 2012 15:00:06 GMT -8
Suggesting this improvement is going to make me incredibly unpopular, but since the opening of the Expo Line, I think it bares mentioning: discontinue Blue Line/Expo Line track-sharing. As follows: Eliminate the wye on Washington Bl./Flower St.; eliminate Grand Station; eliminate the tracks between Flower St. and Hills St. then re-route the Blue Line north on Hill St. After the 101 frwy, an aerial structure would return the Blue Line onto Broadway then in the area of the L.A. Historical State Park merge back onto the Pasadena Gold Line tracks.
Before this were pursued, I'm sure there would have to be a study on how many riders transfer from the Blue Line to the Expo Line and vice versa. If there many such transfers, then the Connector Project would have to be reworked to allow for a transfer station on 2nd St./Hills St. I picked Hills St. because it allows for transfers at either Pershing Square/Angele's Flight and Civic Center. A station on Hill St./Alpine St. would serve the center of China Town.
Another thought was to just leave the wye, the tracks between Flower St. and Hill St., Grand Station, and use it for Blue Line, special game day service to the Staple Center/Convention Center then use Grand Station for train layovers for after the game/event.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 18, 2012 15:42:08 GMT -8
If Metro could somehow find the funds to Underground the Pico Station and move the Flower Street portal to just South of 10 freeway alot of the delays associated the Washington and Flower junction would be mitigated since the wait at the junction would be compensated with a speedy uninterrupted ride into downtown.
Also having rode the blue line two weeks ago I noticed alot of the at-grade station are much more narrower than the GLEE and Expo's 23rd street station's, most notably the Florence Station, which in my opinion seems like a safety hazard. Metro should really widen these stations to the standard width of the more recent at-grade center platform stations.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 18, 2012 18:44:48 GMT -8
The Blue Line /Expo section will now need a Regional Connector Pt 2 project to fix the badness of the shared tracks and the junction. Many have seen this coming, and there are a number of very good ideas on this board. Maybe this can become part of the measure R2 or whatever it is called.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 18, 2012 19:48:26 GMT -8
When the Red Line was in the planning stages decades ago (sigh), there was this great diagram of stacked tunnels (I wish I could find it)! So from the mezzanine, you would descent one level to the east-bound train. If you wanted to go west-bound, you'd descend another level. So not only were the tunnels stacked, but also the platforms. When the system was ready for a second HRT line, say a north-south line, the opposite side of the platform would be temporarily closed off, allowing use of the original tunnels and half of the original platform, while construction of the new tunnels took place. When complete, you'd have stacked center platforms. You would be able, for example, to come in from the east, exit the train and go across the way to take the north-bound train or descend a level and take the south-bound train or exit to the surface. The MTA board, in its infinite wisdom, opted for the tunnel configuration we have today which does not allow for ready expansion. For the future, this kind of configuration will have to be pursued...that or have multiple north-south and east-west Connectors creating a grid.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 20, 2012 8:19:05 GMT -8
As for 4 car platforms I really do see that as a possibility. Most Metro LRT station have room to accommodate 4car trains. They are just a few that would see some type of disruption due to grade separation, or intersection closing in order to achieve the longer platforms. Wouldn't a 360-foot long four car light rail train be so long that when stopped at a traffic light it would be also blocking the last intersection still? I remember hearing that light rail train sets are limited to 3 car trains because 270 feet is the minimum block size in Downtown or something.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 20, 2012 10:11:25 GMT -8
Another pitfall of 4-car modules: assuming Metro would augment the platforms from Washington Station to Willow Station and that 270 feet is minimum block size in DTLB as well, trains headed to DTLA and DTLB, would need to be de-coupledand into either 3+1 cars or 2+2 cars at Willow Station and Washington Station respectively, for street operation. So another operator would be needed to run the +1 or +2 car. Moreover, if I remember correctly, de-coupling a train takes about 2½ minutes; let's assume it's also 2½ minutes to couple. So the cost of operating has about doubled (both operators need to get paid) and 5 minutes have been added to the trip.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 20, 2012 15:30:41 GMT -8
I believe the blocks from Grand to Olive and Olive to Hill can't handle 3 car trains either so I don't buy the block lengths reasoning as to why 4 car trains are not operable. I mean Sacramento can handle 4 car trains at rush hour in the downtown area where the combined headway of their system match the Blue Line's on Washington. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMee0_WfSvk
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jun 21, 2012 5:10:06 GMT -8
I believe the blocks from Grand to Olive and Olive to Hill can't handle 3 car trains either so I don't buy the block lengths reasoning as to why 4 car trains are not operable. I mean Sacramento can handle 4 car trains at rush hour in the downtown area where the combined headway of their system match the Blue Line's on Washington. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMee0_WfSvkThat's true. Those 2 blocks barely contained 2-car trains. When one would be stopped there, the coupler on the rear car would stick out into the crosswalk. This was the Nippon-Sharyo cars where the coupler does stick out aways from the car body, I don't know if this would be the case with the P2000s.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 3, 2012 20:19:55 GMT -8
I watched two (2) videos. One was Cities of the Underworld: Subway Terminal Building. The other was the last day of PE LA to LB running. They just made me really sad. People were still riding the PE Long Beach Line as though it would faithfully be there again tomorrow. The narrator even mentioned which tracks split off into the other long abandoned corridors/ROW's: Whittier, Santa Ana, San Pedro, and Newport. The only thing I concluded after watching them was that the four (4) track main was once a very important artery. Even though it doesn't hold the same importance today that it did then, it's still a happily preferred vein LOL! So what ridiculous improvement can I suggest now? How about running the Blue Line along a tunnel into the old Subway Terminal Building. It would serve as both storage and a station that provides access to Angel's Flight, Grand Central Market, and Pershing Square/Station. I think the Red/Purple Line tunnels were bored deep enough where a tunnel coming in from the east along 4th St. would work.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 11, 2012 19:24:49 GMT -8
It seems like that would duplicate a lot of what the Red Line provides (albeit with a transfer) and might complicate parts of the Regional Connector. Now, extend the Regional Connector subway south past Pico Station and you might have something... the Anime Expo/ X Games crowds swamped the Pico Station and the crosswalk at times (this photo link doesn't do it justice), and NFL football fans would be likely to do the same, as would any major LACC event.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 13, 2012 12:32:00 GMT -8
Poor Pico Station. I think what's going to wind up happening is that Metro will have to acquire the block between Pico Station and the Staple Center to turn into a Game/Event Day staging area and LRV storage yard. It could become a TOD if Metro built retail spaces on the floors over the LRV yard with office space above that and luxury apartments/condos/hotel rooms over that.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 13, 2012 18:40:15 GMT -8
I like your way of thinking, GatewayGent. Unfortunately, I think the reality is going to be much more subdued, with maybe an extra track and an extra platform. Here's a better look at two major events converging on the Blue Line. At Anime Expo/ X Games, part of Figueroa was blocked, and people had to use a limited number of crosswalks at Pico/ Figueroa. Of course, this clogged the crosswalks. This slowed down the Silver Line, other buses, cars, taxis, etc. on Pico. One smart thing that the X Games did is they added this bridge from one of the entrances to West Hall to the far side of Figueroa. It landed at.... Hooters. But it worked. They should have directed more foot traffic to the pedestrian bridge. I would love to see a bridge become a permanent part of the convention center.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 16, 2012 22:36:36 GMT -8
I think bridges are a great way to get people from one block to another before and after a venue. I just hope it doesn't start this craze of adding elevated sidewalks. I don't think the area around the Bonaventure was ever receptive to them. Although, you never know. Maybe this will be the one place they'll be successful.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 16, 2012 22:51:10 GMT -8
I think bridges are a great way to get people from one block to another before and after a venue. I just hope it doesn't start this craze of adding elevated sidewalks. I don't think the area around the Bonaventure was ever receptive to them. Although, you never know. Maybe this will be the one place they'll be successful. I don't think you need to worry; elevated sidewalks were a planning mistake of the 1970s that the City does not want to repeat again. Besides, they're bad in earthquakes.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 17, 2012 19:17:37 GMT -8
I'm not sure where the dividing line is between a pedestrian bridge and an elevated walkway.
I'm thinking any bridge would logically get from the front entrance to the convention center (or Farmers Field) and across Figueroa at the least, which is what the X Games bridge did.
If somebody built a building or TOD between Fig and Flower, the bridge could be incorporated into that. In my dream scenario (money is no option), people would be able to bridge straight to the new Blue Line platform at Pico. That would eliminate any "herd of cosplayers, football fans, convention goers or X Games fans clogging both Fig and Flower crosswalks" problem.
I may be biased based on my experience with the Long Beach Promenade, which is far better than the downtown L.A. elevated sidewalks IMHO. Probably because it's more clear how to get from downtown Long Beach to the convention center or from the LBCC to the waterfront. It was all built as one solid feature rather than piecemeal.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 19, 2012 13:52:51 GMT -8
James, you have given a great example of how bridges and elevated walkways could be useful and functional. They don't work around the Bonaventure because there's nothing to go to from anywhere. I doubt planting a CVS, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, TJ Maxx, Hooters, and Trader Joe's in and around the Bonaventure would ever help those elevated walkways, but judicious planning on the block between Convention Center/Staple Center and Pico Station would. Think in terms of the portion of the Glendale Galleria that bridges over Central Av.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 20, 2012 18:45:58 GMT -8
I do agree that a lot depends on the neighborhood.
The area around the Bonaventure decided a long time ago to neglect its retail/ shopping potential. Even with downtown improving in regards to allowing grocery/ shops and residential, it would take a lot to make those walkways vibrant, and that's not the fault of the walkways.
The area surrounding the convention center, on the other hand, is still in the process of being formed. The block between the convention center and Pico Station is full of potential, where a pedestrian bridge could fit in.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 31, 2012 20:36:38 GMT -8
I can't stand this. The entire message board is WAAYYY too quiet! OK, I think this falls under an improvement: it's been mentioned in several other threads and it makes sense. How about establishing parallel Metrolink service on the tracks next to the Blue Line?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 1, 2012 7:58:18 GMT -8
I can't stand this. The entire message board is WAAYYY too quiet! OK, I think this falls under an improvement: it's been mentioned in several other threads and it makes sense. How about establishing parallel Metrolink service on the tracks next to the Blue Line? That'd be nice, but aren't those tracks being heavily used for freight? The reason i think running metrolink down the ROW that runs through Cudahy and ends just southwest of the airport is better is because not only would it reduce strain on the Blue Line by taking some of it's passengers coming from the downtown area (a faster commute to LB would be irresistible even if it doesn't terminate at the same place as the Blue Line), but at the same time it would create service for a new set of commuters. *note: if its possible, see if the northern part of the Cudahy ROW is wide enough to accommodate 4 tracks, 2 for metrolink and 2 for light-rail on the Santa Ana corridor.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Aug 1, 2012 12:29:55 GMT -8
For four (4) tracks, it appears there would need to be a width of about 100 ft. (if I'm wrong, I hope it's because I'm over measuring instead of under measuring, but please correct me if I'm wrong). The portion of the ROW between Gage Av. and Randolph St. doesn't appear wide enough and the portion between Firstestone Bl. and the L.A. River look questionable because the area is all industrial. The bridges over the L.A. and Rio Hondo Rivers would need to be rebuilt to accommodate four (4) tracks; the current bridge only accommodates one track. The bridge over the L.A. River off of Bandini Bl. would also need to be rebuilt for four (4); it currently accommodates two. The bridge over I-105 would also need to be rebuilt for four (4) tracks. If this Metrolink line were then tied into the CSU/Long Beach extension of the Blue Line, we'd really have something special! But then the biggest obstacle to that becomes the city of Signal Hill...or would it?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 1, 2012 16:09:44 GMT -8
For four (4) tracks, it appears there would need to be a width of about 100 ft. (if I'm wrong, I hope it's because I'm over measuring instead of under measuring, but please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not engineer/expert, but 100 ft seems awfully wide. i really doubt it's that much. EDIT: After looking at sections of the Blue Line ROW on Google Earth/Maps as examples, where there are four (4) tracks (two (2) for freight, (2) for light rail), it appears that ROW is, at a minimum, roughly 65 ft wide in those sections.If that's the case, there's PLENTY of room on the Cudahy ROW for basically the same thing. Of course, stations is a factor, too, and whether or not both technologies would have stations in the same place. Personally, I think only Cudahy merits this. And oddly enough, this area appears to have a lot of potential for TOD's. So potentially, your looking at only one place where Light Rail and Metrolink would realistically have stations in the same area. Well fortunately the majority of that area (on Spring st, between Long Beach Blvd and Cherry) seems to be pretty empty.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Aug 1, 2012 17:02:10 GMT -8
I wish I had more details on what the routing of the Blue Line CSU/Long Beach extension is supposed to be. PCH seems to be the most logical due to its width, especially if it comes through as an extension of one of the South Bay Lines. But just as I say PCH, someone on the Long Beach City Council is saying Willow St.; Anaheim St./PCH/7th St.; or PCH/Atherton St. Not that this Metrolink Line needs to interface/connect with the CSU/Long Beach extension. However, it seems like a missed opportunity if it didn't. Kind of like the Green Line's failure to link to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 2, 2012 22:02:13 GMT -8
I wish I had more details on what the routing of the Blue Line CSU/Long Beach extension is supposed to be. PCH seems to be the most logical due to its width, especially if it comes through as an extension of one of the South Bay Lines. But just as I say PCH, someone on the Long Beach City Council is saying Willow St.; Anaheim St./PCH/7th St.; or PCH/Atherton St. Actually, now that i think about it, Anahaim makes more sense, as it seems to be a much denser area than PCH. Now it would still require a short underground section under the Park Estates neighborhood, but the benefit of that is that it would emerge right in the middle of CSU on Beach dr. I think the best chance of it connecting with the CSU extension is by having it cross the 405 and head to the Willow station.
|
|