|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 7, 2008 9:06:19 GMT -8
As I have previously referenced, there are several " HAIR ON FIRE" memos discussing the problems with the shared Flower Street segment and at some intersections south of the Washington. Most of them I have and will continue to use as my justification for requesting that the Downtown Connector Study should include evaluation of an extension of the Flower St tunnel south. I'll be uploading most of the memos over the near future and it should be educational to those who actually want to understand the operational difficulties in attempting to RELIABLY run light rail in street-running segments in high traffic areas, and the conflict that at-grade rail in these areas have with vehicular traffic. The memos also serve to explain how professional internal concerns that have to do with sound transportation planning conflict with monetary concerns held by politicians. (From the memo linked below: "These results have been shared on separate occasions with staff from the MTA's Engineering and Operations Departments and have been met with general concurrence.") It's one of the reasons I say those who advocate for cheap rail are actually doing more to aide the epidemic that has led to current and will lead to future problems at Metro. But I understand the mentality of the "just build baby, build" segment of rail advocates and their frustrations. I just don't see it as a cause to let politicians off he hook. Nonetheless, the first memo is from 2003 and was previously referenced. First, current rail reliability of the Blue Line in the street-running segment is discussed: "Due to the street running portion of the alignment, this effective headway of five-minutes varies significantly from schedule. Trains were observed to routinely arrive at the terminal as close together as 90 seconds and as far apart as nine minutes. In the event that the first train in a pair of trains operating at a 90 second headway were held at the Flower and Washington intersection, the second train would be unable to advance to the platform of the Grand Station for over a minute and a half. In fact, due to the train length of approximately 270 feet, the second train would be forced to wait as far back as the Main Street intersection before proceeding. This occurrence has the potential to impact Blue Line operations along the entire portion of street running." It also discusses the need for the schedules to be compatible as I stated over 2 years ago: "During the process of exploring operating options for the Expo Line, it was discovered that the MTA intends to implement a four-minute headway on the Blue Line in 2009, as documented by the MTA Rail Fleet Management Plan dated January 31,2003. To account for this, simulations have also been conducted to show the impacts of operating a four-minute peak: headway on the Blue Line while operating a five-minute peak headway on the Expo Line. It is important to note that these two headways are fundamentally incompatible and result in significant and regular operating delays." I encourage all to read the memo... June 2003 Expo Line Operations Simulation Results
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 7, 2008 12:15:40 GMT -8
National guidelines for light-rail allow down to to 2-minute headways per direction but not a second less for at-grade light-rail. (See Page 32 of the Metro grade-crossing policy for light-rail.) This is not to say that there will not be some LRT delays due to at-grade operations. The problem with your proposal is the usual one: money. It requires about a mile of underground track and the conversion of Pico Station and Grand Station to trench stations. It may also cause discontinuities in the operations. I'm not opposing your proposal but just saying that it has little chance of being adopted due to high cost and necessity to convert the existing Blue Line stations. The Downtown Connector will open in 2015 since they will very likely not pursue federal funds. If they do the grade separation you ask for, it would be delayed to 2023 - 2025 because of the necessity to seek federal funds. This is unacceptable by many people. The table below summarizes the latest cost and schedule for the top Measure R projects. | Non-Measure-R | Measure-R | Federal | Total | Completion | Expo Line Phase 2 to Santa Monica | $707 million | $147 | $0 | $854 | 2013 | Gold Line Phase 2 to Azusa | $23 | $805 | $0 | $828 | 2013 | Downtown Connector | $452 | $868 | $0 | $1320 | 2015 | | | | | | | Total | $1182 | $1820 | $0 | $3002 | 2015 |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 7, 2008 12:46:53 GMT -8
Your five-year-out-of-date source is based on obsolete assumptions. Following are excerpts from Item 43 at Metro's Operations Committee, June 19, 2008, primarily about capacity to store and service rail vehicles, but specifying future operational details (emphasis added): 1. 2009-2010 (Gold Line Eastside and Expo Phase I Start-up)
Blue Line
Today, the Blue Line operates what are essentially two routes: 11-minute headway from 7th St./Metro Center to downtown Long Beach and 11-minute headway from 7th St. /Metro Center to Willow Station in North Long Beach. Operating these two routes together yields what is approximately 5.5-minute peak service from 7th St./Metro Center to Willow Station. With the opening of the Exposition Line, the Blue Line peak headway service will be changed to one peak route, operating the entire line (from 7th & Metro to Long Beach) at 6-minute headway. This is expected to provide improved distribution of passenger loads, reducing some overcrowding in those trains currently operating the entire route. Additionally, operating at the 6-minute headway also becomes necessary to operate jointly with the Expo Line to maintain reasonable expectations for service delivery reliability.
Exposition Line
The Exposition I Line (Expo I) from 7th St./Metro Center to Culver City has a scheduled revenue operation date in year 2010 and will share the Blue Line tracks from Washington Blvd. and Flower St. to 7th St./Metro Center. Expo I is expected to begin with 5 three-car trains or 15 vehicles in revenue service to support a 12-minute peak headway service, operating in between Blue Line trains.
2. 2013 (5 Year Plan - Continued Ridership Growth)
Exposition Line
A need for an additional 34 train storage spaces will result once a 6-minute peak headway service with 3-car trains is implemented. The joint operation of the Blue Line and the Expo line requires consistency in train length and headways between the shared portions of the Blue and Expo lines. In short the operations must be complementary to maintain operational balance over the shared portion of the lines. Assuming the Blue Line remains at 6-minute headways, Expo must be, for example, operating at either a 12 or 6-minute headway. Otherwise, unbalanced headways (Blue at 6 minutes and Expo at 8 minutes for example) would result in the trains being scheduled at the same place at the same time every few minutes.
This increase assumes a 100% increase in service and may be more than can be justified based upon ridership demand. However, additionally, because of the significant amount of street-run sections on both lines creating intermittent operational delays and a short turnaround time at the 7th & Metro terminal, all trains must be of the same train length (3-cars). This provides the flexibility required to send out a train on a different route than what it came in from, allowing for scheduled service recovery (from street-run delays as an example) and not reducing capacity requirements on the Blue Line. Operational testing was conducted over the last few months on Flower St. and into 7th St./Metro Center, operating additional trains to simulate a sustained 3-minute trunk headway schedule (every 6-minutes on each line). From this test, it was discovered that small interruptions anywhere along the Blue Line led to delays that allowed Expo trains to arrive at 7th St. /Metro Center before the scheduled Blue Line train, and in essence, out of order. To restore service back onto the Blue Line, it became necessary to route the Expo train out of the terminal as a Blue line train. In turn, the late Blue Line train would take the scheduled departure of the Expo train. After testing this operation on two different occasions, it became clear that in order to protect the Blue Line service capacity it experiences today, all trains on both lines must share the same train consist size.
It should be noted, that for Blue and Expo trains to successfully share the same tracks on Flower St. and 7th St./Metro Center terminal AND operate at 3-minute trunk headways in an already congested corridor, system and facility improvements will likely be required, possibly including a grade separation at Washington & Flower and greater traffic signal prioritization or pre-emption.
4. 2030 (Long Range Transit Plan Assumptions)
Blue Line
This is the first time the Blue Line sees any real improvement in peak headway within 22 years service with a 1-minute reduction in peak service from 6-minutes to 5 minutes. No "hair on fire", just experienced professionals doing their jobs well.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 7, 2008 13:17:50 GMT -8
The other problem is that it will require a lot more tunnel than just the one mile to Washington/Flower because of the short block spacing between Grand to Santee Street means that there's no place to insert this new portal.
That is why there would need a whole new study just to look at this one segment in how it relates to all of Downtown a lot more than Regional Connector (RC) by itself because the RC starts to relate how the pieces come together and figure how they'll operate the service. Also there's greater potential funding flexibility as to how to tie this project into something. If this is tied as a joint beginning Blue Line capacity upgrade and Regional Connector Part 2 then there's a greater chance of funding it compared to it just being a Regional Connector project.
We could just find a new replacement corridor for Washington Blvd such as 11th or 12th linking Convention Center, South Park, Fashion District, the Industiral/Electronics District, back to the existing Blue Line ROW, that can be built as a mix of at-grade, elevated and tunnel which would double with some capacity improvements or in the interim grade separate the Washington/Flower crossing to something similar to what is being proposed at 1st/Alameda and eliminate the driveways from 12th to Washington.
Then that means the either one of the options at-grade tracks would only contain Expo Line trains and with the Regional Connector completed will route these trains there that coupled with removing the driveways that cross this segment would improve operations and issues because at Washington/Flower there are no trains turning anymore, they're running straight through that can be coordinated with the signals.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 7, 2008 13:22:35 GMT -8
I mean...have you SEEN some of those older Expo/Metro guys? Hair on fire...with some of them being so bald? ) Anyway, we do seem to have a system (especially with the feds!) that forces us to wait until something is at-capacity before we can do an upgrade. Not enough proactive leeway, but we'll see what happens over the next 5-10 years what happens to Downtown traffic (both car and rail). I'd love to see the street-running portion of the Blue Line replaced with a tunnel...but then again I'd like to see the Orange Line converted from a Busway to a LRT (and with lots of elevated grade separations), too. Where's the money gonna come from? Regardless of whether or not we favor, oppose, or have ambivalence about the Foothill Gold Line extension to Azusa, it's virtually the one major ready-to-go passenger rail project that's out there. Other projects that are ready to go include the Alameda Corridor East project and a slew of freeway projects to benefit (predominantly) the eastern half of the county. If President Obama wanted to really help L.A. County out in the short-term, he could infuse a large federal payment of the Foothill Gold Line, the Alameda Corridor East project, and all the other freight/passenger rail grade separations and freeway projects that are "ready to go", thereby clearing the way for our Proposition R funds to go for more local projects. Furthermore, a re-evaluation of the federal standards for "cost-effectiveness" of rail projects are long overdue by the FTA. The Bush administration's policy of "we hate the cities" needs to be replaced with a "we love the cities, they're the cornerstone of our economic powerhouse" by the new Obama administration.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 7, 2008 14:12:23 GMT -8
it is my understanding that not one cent of the Measure R monies cannot be diverted for anything except for the intended project....the San Gabriel tribune speaks of all the measure money being diverted for the AIG fiasco. But they didn't do their homework either. Nor one dime of Measure R can be diverted! The Auto club worked with several politicans to make sure that this language was in the Bill. Thank God the money will be used for the Measure R projects only.. No new flower beds for the mayor's office , or money to paint Supervisor Molina's house or money for the pet projects of the other dissident supervisors either!!. P. S. I think Bart can back up what I'm saying!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 7, 2008 14:31:08 GMT -8
It should be noted, that for Blue and Expo trains to successfully share the same tracks on Flower St. and 7th St./Metro Center terminal AND operate at 3-minute trunk headways in an already congested corridor, system and facility improvements will likely be required, possibly including a grade separation at Washington & Flower and greater traffic signal prioritization or pre-emption. No hair on fire, just experienced professionals doing their jobs well. Darrell selectively highlighted the signal prioritization but (as I underlined) Metro does acknowledge the need for grade separation at Flower/Washington, which has also been emphasized by almost everyone on this board who rides the Blue Line. But the problem is money and time. There is neither money nor time to get this grade separation done for the 2015 opening of the Downtown Connector. At one point in the future, perhaps 2030, perhaps 2050, I'm sure that we will see 1-minute (or 2-minute per direction) headways on this trunk, but the necessary changes and grade separations can be achieved at that time. Let's get the system together now; grade separations can be added in the future as needed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 7, 2008 17:02:49 GMT -8
I agree with the responses. There have been several memos over the last year that have referenced 6-minute headways, not 4 minutes. I'd also like to point out once again that this new headway will include Long Beach and not just to Willow.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 7, 2008 20:13:44 GMT -8
Roadtrainer is correct--Prop. R money can't be diverted away from the Foothill Gold Line to another project...and that's a good thing. That money can and should be used in the long-term for a second extension of the Foothill Gold Line to Montclair or Ontario Airport or wherever.
Still, in the short-term (that being five years, while the studies are being done for the next Foothill Gold Line extension) it would be nice to have another $700-800 million available to be diverted to other ready-to-go projects involving our freeways and rail systems.
The ACE project, freeway widenings and upgrades, the Metrolink Run-Through Project, LOSSAN widenings and grade separations--all of these need to be worked on NOW, so that when the Expo and Downtown Connector and Subway and Crenshaw Projects are done with their studies in 2010 or so we can go straight from the studies to design/build.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 7, 2008 20:43:03 GMT -8
First, I have a bridge to sell anyone who thinks greater traffic pre-emption is going to be allowed in the street-running sections of LA, especially with 40-48 trains an hour in the Flower St segment. You don't have to have read the correspondence between MTA/Expo and LADOT to find it out, it's in the memo: "The use of aggressive pre-emption of traffic signals along the street running portion of the Blue Line in order to properly meter and maintain headways. This option may have significant impacts on vehicular traffic and may be met with significant resistance by the LADOT." "The use of aggressive pre-emption of traffic signals along the length of the Blue Line in order to properly meter and maintain headways. Again, an option that is likely to be unacceptable to the LADOT." Second, is it really hard to put two and two together? From the '08 Memo: Operational testing was conducted over the last few months on Flower St. and into 7th St./Metro Center, operating additional trains to simulate a sustained 3-minute trunk headway schedule (every 6-minutes on each line). From this test, it was discovered that small interruptions anywhere along the Blue Line led to delays that allowed Expo trains to arrive at 7th St. /Metro Center before the scheduled Blue Line train, and in essence, out of order. From the '03 Memo: "Under the current operating conditions, as observed empirically, Blue Line trains are extremely challenged to maintain consistent five-minute headways during peak operations."
"Currently, during the PM peak, the 7th & Metro Center Terminal operates at an effective headway of five-minutes, accommodating 12 trains per hour. Due to the street running portion of the alignment, this effective headway of five-minutes varies significantly from schedule. Trains were observed to routinely arrive at the terminal as close together as 90 seconds and as far apart as nine minutes. In the event that the first train in a pair of trains operating at a 90 second headway were held at the Flower and Washington intersection, the second train would be unable to advance to the platform of the Grand Station for over a minute and a half. In fact, due to the train length of approximately 270 feet, the second train would be forced to wait as far back as the Main Street intersection before proceeding. This occurrence has the potential to impact Blue Line operations along the entire portion of street running. Let me make it simpler: A SUSTAINED 3-min headways is problematic (to say nothing of how all this will play in practice at 7th/Metro, when actually having to interface with people and operators), but actual current operations at a frequency that is 40% lower (5 min headways) results in variations of 90 seconds to 9 mins, which is far from "sustained." You're right nothing to see here...move along. But those that haven't drunk the at-grade Kool-aid will find the problem even greater when considering: a) that now 100% of Blue Line trains will be operating through the City of Long Beach, a segment with little to no signal priority (I forget which it is). b) the challenges of Expo Line Flower St operations south of Washington, which will be posted later.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 7, 2008 22:16:08 GMT -8
Irregular arrival times were already explicitly remedied in the 2008 report, as I just quoted: This provides the flexibility required to send out a train on a different route than what it came in from, allowing for scheduled service recovery (from street-run delays as an example) and not reducing capacity requirements on the Blue Line. Lack of signal priority in Long Beach streets, while not good for speed, doesn't affect their ability to operate on 6-minute headways. This discussion reminds me of attending Professor Najm Meskati's students' final presentations a few years ago, along with senior Metro safety staff. After hearing the young, idealistic students' recommendations, staff responded with comments like, "we tried that, but it didn't work out for this reason" or "we began there, and progressed to...". They really are experienced professionals.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 8, 2008 6:43:40 GMT -8
I actually agree with a lot of the substance of Damien's comments here. Unfortunately for him, his attacks on those who disagree with him start in post 1, before anyone has even had a chance to agree or disagree with him! "drunk the at-grade Kool-aid"...that's actually one of the funniest lines you've written Damien, for so many reasons!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 8, 2008 7:17:08 GMT -8
As usual, I have never recommended attacks on anyone who has an element of the truth to their arguments. Sooner or later, we'll need to have more of the street running portion of the Blue Line underground, and sooner or later we'll need to have a Blue Line upgrade.
Hey--the Blue Line (despite its shortcomings) started it all, it's virtually at-capacity, and it's only going to be more successful.
The Transit Coalition fought (and still fights) to give the Downtown Connector its priority, and has recommended focusing on the undergrounding of the Blue Line Downtown. Call it "the next Downtown Connector", if you will.
As I see it, the problem isn't anything that Damien and Gokhan and Darrell are saying--to a large degree, they're representing elements of the truth.
It's the two-pronged problems of: 1) Having the federal government have a very high bar for "cost-effectiveness" or "cost per rider" as a result of the anti-rail policies of this current administration and the FTA it oversees
2) Having a political leadership that really hasn't shown the love for the Downtown Connector and the Blue Line that they deserve
As I see it, the most realistic short-term solution is to encourage ways to get the Harbor Transitway to pull enough "express" riders away from the Blue Line...but it really doesn't answer the ultimate question of how to accommodate a Blue Line that could easily someday reach 150,000 in daily ridership.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 8, 2008 8:46:16 GMT -8
As I see it, the most realistic short-term solution is to encourage ways to get the Harbor Transitway to pull enough "express" riders away from the Blue Line...but it really doesn't answer the ultimate question of how to accommodate a Blue Line that could easily someday reach 150,000 in daily ridership. The answer is likely the Vermont corridor, that both complements the parallel Blue Line and serves additional riders now stuck on slow buses, in the same way that Wilshire and Expo will complement each other.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 8, 2008 10:11:49 GMT -8
I agree, Darrell, that the long-term solution is the Vermont corridor, which could easily warrant a subway of its own. Asking the region, however, to wait another 30 years for that doesn't sound too nice, or even very smart.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 8, 2008 10:24:51 GMT -8
I agree, Darrell, that the long-term solution is the Vermont corridor, which could easily warrant a subway of its own. Asking the region, however, to wait another 30 years for that doesn't sound too nice, or even very smart. Ken is absolutely right. Vermont Ave requires a subway and no one knows when it could happen at the moment. We should concentrate on the current projects first. Once the subway is put there, it will also take away the buses from the street, which will substantially improve the traffic. Currently back to back orange and red buses cause a traffic nightmare during rush hour. In fact Vermont and Exposition is a grade-F intersection during rush hour thanks to the buses, and the Expo Line will have difficulties to make it through that intersection.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 8, 2008 10:34:46 GMT -8
I actually agree with a lot of the substance of Damien's comments here. Unfortunately for him, his attacks on those who disagree with him start in post 1, before anyone has even had a chance to agree or disagree with him! "drunk the at-grade Kool-aid"...that's actually one of the funniest lines you've written Damien, for so many reasons! It's true that the animosities between some people of either view on this board, as well as the animosities of some of them toward MTA, are making their arguments less convincing because they sound like they are arguing merely to prove their point. As far as Kool-Aid is concerned, yet the casualties need to be reported. I will drink the Light-Rail Kool-Aid® until I hear that my fellow comrades are in heaven. Besides, drink light and stay healthy.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 8, 2008 10:38:52 GMT -8
Well, Proposition R just got passed, but it does allow for changes in the game plan should future public and political will change. I can't help but wonder if, considering how uninterested the county is for the Eastside LRT extension to Whittier (compared to other projects like Expo, Wilshire Subway and Foothill Gold Line) we won't see a suggestion to switch that project's funding to either this Vermont subway or another project that enjoys greater support from the planners and the people.
Kinda makes me wonder when the old Prop. A and C bonds/funds for the Blue Line are all paid off, because in 10-20 years this project will just get more and more and more glaring...
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 8, 2008 10:43:02 GMT -8
Ken is absolutely right. Vermont Ave requires a subway and no one knows when it could happen at the moment. We should concentrate on the current projects first. Once the subway is put there, it will also take away the buses from the street, which will substantially improve the traffic. Currently back to back orange and red buses cause a traffic nightmare during rush hour. In fact Vermont and Exposition is a grade-F intersection during rush hour thanks to the buses, and the Expo Line will have difficulties to make it through that intersection. It doesn't hurt to get $$$ for a planning study going on this corridor, first from the community and then by the Flavor-aid Metro Board. As you can see I'm using a different more 'Jim Jones' brand of sweetened soft drink mix.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 8, 2008 11:19:05 GMT -8
Actually Vermont Ave is 150 - 250-ft-wide south of Gage Ave, just past the Harbor Subdivision, because it was a former railroad right-of-way. It's not clear how much need there is for a subway on Vermont once Expo and Crenshaw Lines and the Harbor Subdivision Line goes into service. Also, it would be a big waste of money to build a subway instead of light-rail on the wide section Vermont.
Subways cost $$,$$$,$$$,$$$. Light-rail costs $,$$$,$$$,$$$. This means you get five light-rail lines for the price of one subway line.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 8, 2008 12:05:27 GMT -8
Or an elevated south of Gage on the wide 180' street.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 8, 2008 21:14:58 GMT -8
Damien the blue line doesn't strictly follow the published timetables as it is. There are already delays not only because of street running, but for a variety of reasons. Metro won't be able to maintain the combined 3-minute headways in exact accordance with the schedule all the time. But Metro is looking to minimize problems by being able to turn Expo trains as Blue and vice versa. We'll likely have some bunching, some missed intervals, but that's just the way it'll be. Like it is now really.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 9, 2008 12:29:09 GMT -8
Damien the blue line doesn't strictly follow the published timetables as it is. There are already delays not only because of street running, but for a variety of reasons. Metro won't be able to maintain the combined 3-minute headways in exact accordance with the schedule all the time. But Metro is looking to minimize problems by being able to turn Expo trains as Blue and vice versa. We'll likely have some bunching, some missed intervals, but that's just the way it'll be. Like it is now really. "Variety of reasons"? Do tell..... That's like giving a reason why the Red, Purple, and Green lines do not follow a set time table, when in fact, they do. And that's because they're all grade seperated. It has to be at-grade reasons trains do not run 100% on schedule. However, I do like to know what other reasons would cause the Blue Line to be delayed.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 9, 2008 12:31:52 GMT -8
I agree, Darrell, that the long-term solution is the Vermont corridor, which could easily warrant a subway of its own. Asking the region, however, to wait another 30 years for that doesn't sound too nice, or even very smart. Ken is absolutely right. Vermont Ave requires a subway and no one knows when it could happen at the moment. We should concentrate on the current projects first. Once the subway is put there, it will also take away the buses from the street, which will substantially improve the traffic. Currently back to back orange and red buses cause a traffic nightmare during rush hour. In fact Vermont and Exposition is a grade-F intersection during rush hour thanks to the buses, and the Expo Line will have difficulties to make it through that intersection. That's funny Gokhan. I would think traffic is due to the multiple, multiple, and multiple single passenger vehicles. Look at the volume of cars compared to buses, there's absolutely no comparison. Buses carry dozens of people, this is way more efficient than a car will ever be. Plus, with increased alternatives (like a future Vermont corridor subway), I can't see any reasonable transit agency cutting bus service. It's not like the other world-class cities has cut bus service b/c of additional train service. Duplicative or not, I think there will be a more reason for additional buses due to higher pedestrian needs.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 9, 2008 12:56:59 GMT -8
Plus, with increased alternatives (like a future Vermont corridor subway), I can't see any reasonable transit agency cutting bus service. It's not like the other world-class cities has cut bus service b/c of additional train service. Duplicative or not, I think there will be a more reason for additional buses due to higher pedestrian needs. Rapid bus service is intended to be an approximation of rail service. Real rail service, once built, would provide faster service at lower operating cost per passenger mile, and one would expect duplicative Rapid buses in the corridor to be redeployed. But local buses would still keep their distinct function.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 9, 2008 14:21:25 GMT -8
Ken is absolutely right. Vermont Ave requires a subway and no one knows when it could happen at the moment. We should concentrate on the current projects first. Once the subway is put there, it will also take away the buses from the street, which will substantially improve the traffic. Currently back to back orange and red buses cause a traffic nightmare during rush hour. In fact Vermont and Exposition is a grade-F intersection during rush hour thanks to the buses, and the Expo Line will have difficulties to make it through that intersection. That's funny Gokhan. I would think traffic is due to the multiple, multiple, and multiple single passenger vehicles. Look at the volume of cars compared to buses, there's absolutely no comparison. Buses carry dozens of people, this is way more efficient than a car will ever be. Plus, with increased alternatives (like a future Vermont corridor subway), I can't see any reasonable transit agency cutting bus service. It's not like the other world-class cities has cut bus service b/c of additional train service. Duplicative or not, I think there will be a more reason for additional buses due to higher pedestrian needs. I'm not saying that we don't need buses. We absolutely do need buses as a viable transit alternative for many people. I'm just restating Metro's own statement that too many buses cause traffic congestion. This is because buses stop frequently and block the right lane when that happens. In fact, I remember that during the bus-driver strike, traffic on Vermont was better. So, the fact that too many buses cause traffic congestion is one reason why we need rail in heavily ridden corridors.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 9, 2008 15:10:55 GMT -8
Damien the blue line doesn't strictly follow the published timetables as it is. There are already delays not only because of street running, but for a variety of reasons. Metro won't be able to maintain the combined 3-minute headways in exact accordance with the schedule all the time. But Metro is looking to minimize problems by being able to turn Expo trains as Blue and vice versa. We'll likely have some bunching, some missed intervals, but that's just the way it'll be. Like it is now really. "Variety of reasons"? Do tell..... That's like giving a reason why the Red, Purple, and Green lines do not follow a set time table, when in fact, they do. And that's because they're all grade seperated. It has to be at-grade reasons trains do not run 100% on schedule. However, I do like to know what other reasons would cause the Blue Line to be delayed. The biggest delays that I've personally experienced on the blue line were due to accidents with cars. Also some were due to activities/incidents next to the line that either blocked one or more tracks or otherwise caused delays. So I’m not saying that street running won’t lead to delays. But street running is what we have already on the blue line and it’s what we’ll have on Expo. Damien was talking about grade separating Flower and I was saying that we’ll have delays due to existing operations and other stuff regardless of whether Flower is grade separated. Non-street running delays that I’ve experienced on the blue line were several train mechanical problems and sadly violence. I’ve seen trains taken trains out of service for both reasons.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 9, 2008 18:11:58 GMT -8
^ Precisely.
The Red and Purple Line trains have delays in it's operating service due to missed or delayed rail signals at the Wilshire/Vermont junction or malfunctioning equipment, or the typical people holding the doors to the trains for a few people to board, then there's the occasional subway suicide. There are other factors in play.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 10, 2008 11:29:39 GMT -8
Maybe the Obama team can pay to put the blue line in ditch. The whole section down Flower and Washington Blvd. needs to be underground. Or at least the street needs to be sunk under that awful Washington/Flower intersection - something will need to be done to fix that mess. It is the most glacial part of the Blue Line.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 10, 2008 12:25:59 GMT -8
Or at least the street needs to be sunk under that awful Washington/Flower intersection - something will need to be done to fix that mess. It is the most glacial part of the Blue Line. i still cannot understand why they went and made a median running alignment there. they could have easily just kept the line going down the western lane since the parcel at the north east corner was already taken perhaps it was mitigation to keep the McD's at washington and olive open...
|
|