|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 4, 2007 10:00:03 GMT -8
Metro expects chaos. Operations has been complaining for quite some time. There's been major internal debate about this particular section. This is why I say the trains will have to be interchangeable. The schedules will be so tight that some will come into 7th Street as Expo, but leave as Blue. I believe the schedule to start is 2:1.
A separate below grade track should have been created for this portion, with a crossover in the Flower Street tunnel. If we were really forward thinking we'd include a wye somewhere around Pico to allow for a new route for the Blue Line (through Fashion District/South Park) to be implemented if we ever intend on grade separating the Washington Blvd portion.
Antonio the single platform doesn't solve the problem because of the crossovers both in the tunnel and at Washington/Flower. The synchronization at Washington/Flower is going to be interesting. All 4 lines will only be able to move with Flower Street green. Keep in mind northbound Expo can't move if Blue Line is moving, southbound Blue Line can't move if Expo is moving, and northbound Blue can only move with southbound Expo. Add to that a lagging left turns off Flower onto Washington, and timed left at Figueroa/Washington and you are looking at backup of both train and vehicular back up at the intersection.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 4, 2007 10:11:31 GMT -8
12th street can't be blocked off during rush hour. That's a main cross street for people walking to Staples/LA Live, including the people getting off the train.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 4, 2007 10:15:01 GMT -8
Oh yea, and at 130 accidents in 0.6 miles in 17 years this is the most accident-prone section of light rail in the country.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 4, 2007 10:22:33 GMT -8
I can see chaos happening. Not only will trains enter as blue, but leave as expo, but watch for Willow trains becoming Long Beach and vice versa as they try to keep up. And this won't be purely a rush hour phenomenon. Keeping up with combined 6-minute headways throughout the day will be difficult with any kind of a delay on either line.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Dec 4, 2007 19:40:28 GMT -8
Plus with the accidents, its gonna mean lower ridership, and the NIMBYs are gonna start to rise up again, after we fought so hard to get the expo line going.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 6, 2007 17:16:26 GMT -8
Metro expects chaos. Operations has been complaining for quite some time. There's been major internal debate about this particular section. This is why I say the trains will have to be interchangeable. The schedules will be so tight that some will come into 7th Street as Expo, but leave as Blue. I believe the schedule to start is 2:1. A separate below grade track should have been created for this portion, with a crossover in the Flower Street tunnel. If we were really forward thinking we'd include a Wye somewhere around Pico to allow for a new route for the Blue Line (through Fashion District/South Park) to be implemented if we ever intend on grade separating the Washington Blvd portion. Antonio the single platform doesn't solve the problem because of the crossovers both in the tunnel and at Washington/Flower. The synchronization at Washington/Flower is going to be interesting. All 4 lines will only be able to move with Flower Street green. Keep in mind northbound Expo can't move if Blue Line is moving, southbound Blue Line can't move if Expo is moving, and northbound Blue can only move with southbound Expo. Add to that a lagging left turns off Flower onto Washington, and timed left at Figueroa/Washington and you are looking at backup of both train and vehicular back up at the intersection. ;D Here is a good argument for what I've been saying concerning the DTC. The Alameda portion is best because Half of the Blue Line trains will go to 7th and Flower and the other half can go up Alameda Ave. straight to Union Station. Thats why I'm a sticker for the Alameda Corridor. I can for see a big freaking mess going to 7th and Flower. 3 or 4 trains on Flower St. awaiting for room at 7th and Flower, People peeved because they are late for their destination/ connection. Come on now lets be reasonable, and lets be practical. Alameda will take traffic off the blue Line and keep trains from waiting At Washington and Grand or at the Flower and Washington Junction. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 11, 2007 15:01:32 GMT -8
Roadtrainer, Do you see Expo Line trains utilize this Alameda Stretch?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 11, 2007 15:50:28 GMT -8
... All 4 lines will only be able to move with Flower Street green... All 4 lines?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 20, 2007 17:01:08 GMT -8
Roadtrainer, Do you see Expo Line trains utilize this Alameda Stretch? ;D Sir: Not really unless Metro wants too fix it that way, I'm only thinking of half the Blue-line trains go up Alameda to Union Station. That would mean that there will be less a mess at 7th and Flower. But we the people of The Transit Coalition are Visionaries and can see better ideas for transit traveling tht these overpaid people who dream up impractical transit corridors. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Dec 20, 2007 20:02:30 GMT -8
That portion of the Blue line has to be grade-separated soon or later. Street running+Tight headways+2 rail lines+ only 2 tracks=........(i don't want to imagine)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 23, 2007 20:15:53 GMT -8
I took a ride along expo today to see what was up. I hadn't been there in several months and unfortunately it looks pretty much the same. Construction goes really slowly at the beginning I guess. Still they're going to have to start hitting their stride to even come close to a 2010 start date. One of the few major construction sites that I saw was on Jefferson west of La Cienega. This is the very end of it. I was facing the sun in the other pics so you can't really see anything. Most of the rest of the ROW looks like this. There is also major construction near Figueroa, but I didn't stop to take a picture. Not much to see really. It looks like they're getting things back to normal on Flower south of Washington following the utility relocation. I thought that maybe they were getting ready to lay some tracks, but it doesn't look like it. Finally here's a pic of the (in)famous Farmdale crossing. From what I can see some sort of elevated pedestrian bridge should work. It's right next to the high school. It looks to me like the MTA and the Expo Construction Authority screwed up by not accounting for the heavy foot traffic before and after school. It may only be busy for a couple of hours a day, but it's gotta be very busy for those hours. I wonder if they just looked at the daily total and not some sort of hourly maximum...
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 23, 2007 21:43:34 GMT -8
Track and catenary are usually the last items to be built. If the line is going to open in Summer 2010, the rail would be installed in early 2009 with the catenary following by early summer.
The key projects are the USC trench, the grade separations and the Venice / Robertson elevated station. Once this infrastructure is in place, then you install the rail and power. So, you've got at least 12 months or more to see those elements.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 24, 2007 6:05:53 GMT -8
Bart is absolutely correct! That's why Metro planners often freak out when people talk about tunnelling below streets, or even above- or at-grade street-routed rails--it's the utility relocation, stupid! It's also a reason why tunnelling below LAX to connect the Green Line is so scary--utility and water runoff issues crop up out of nowhere!!!
...and don't even get started about environmental discoveries that lead to cleanup problems. Heck, even the Orange Line Busway had that issue!
Still, it's an issue that must be confronted, but it takes up time and $$$, and we must be fearless in dealing with both because the problems are NOT insurmountable. After Expo comes Crenshaw, and we must understand that the $$$ and grade-separation issues will probably prevent that line (which I prefer to be LRT and NOT a Busway) from being longer in its first phase than an Expo-to-LAX route.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 24, 2007 10:51:02 GMT -8
Thanks Bart and Ken. The utility relocation is a big deal, but not much to look at as far as noticeable progression. I hope that they stay close to schedule, but with the delays around Dorsey and the earlier funding hiccup I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they slip a little. Just a little disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 24, 2007 11:09:19 GMT -8
When I drove along Expo I paid special attention to the neighborhoods, especially the density and the destinations along the way. My observations were that the neighborhoods immediately surrounding Expo (within 1/2 mile - walking distance) are much denser than the neighborhoods surrounding the blue line. The blue line has manufacturing areas on one or both sides for much of it's route. And while there is high density housing there's much more single family homes. The neighborhoods around Expo also have single family homes, but more apartments than the blue line from what I could see. My WAG is that on average there might be 50% more people within a half mile of Expo than there are within a half mile of the blue line.
Expo really only has a few destinations right on the line. Downtown LA and USC are the main ones. Crenshaw and Baldwin Hills Mall. On the blue line Long Beach is another big destination, but when Expo is finished Santa Monica and the rest of the westside will be MAJOR destinations for Expo. Even more so than downtown LA which will likely be the major destination until Phase 2 is built.
In short I see this line getting more riders per mile than the blue line even before Phase 2 is built. The ridership may end up being way ahead of the blue line by the time Phase 2 is completed. Metro is gonna have to choose whether light or heavy rail will be the backbone of our rail system. So far they're going with light rail, but ridership on Expo and the eastside gold line may be enough to make them reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 25, 2007 9:26:52 GMT -8
;DBlue-Line Shawn: Thanks for the pictures, Happy New Year to all, God bless us----everyone. And when it is all said and done, the Expo-Line trains will be packed out going to 7th and Flower. My new years wishes will be... 1. NIMBY's will repent of their sins and see that they were just being selfish, light rail is good for everybody, including the Anti-Expo-rail people! 2. Metro will discover that average citizens (like the T.C.C. and SO.CA.TA.) can really see what's happening and fire those who are costing Metro millions, and use to the fullest (like the T.C.C. and SO.CA.TA.) to help build rail-Lines and bus-ways. Metro will get away from the Ostrage effect (head buried in the sand) and build the trench going to the airport (because other cities have done it) and while their at it- extend it to meet the Expo-Line. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 25, 2007 12:11:47 GMT -8
Those are three New Year Wishes I can agree with all the way!
It is my belief that once light rail comes to town in areas heretofore unknown for decades, the Westside and Mid-City will embrace the Expo Line because it is built right. I also predict that TTC will enjoy greater relevance than the BRU because they will both work with, advise, promote and (at times) oppose/correct Metro in their policies. So, too, can we play a role in the passage of initiatives to help pay for the long-overdue infrastructure.
Furthermore, TTC has been, and will continue to be, at the forefront of efforts to trench up Aviation Blvd. and both connect the Green Line to the Airport as well as allow a golden opportunity for the Crenshaw Corridor Project to extend up to the Expo and Wilshire lines as a first-rate light rail...and not as a second-rate Busway.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 25, 2007 12:21:03 GMT -8
When I drove along Expo I paid special attention to the neighborhoods, especially the density and the destinations along the way. My observations were that the neighborhoods immediately surrounding Expo (within 1/2 mile - walking distance) are much denser than the neighborhoods surrounding the blue line. The blue line has manufacturing areas on one or both sides for much of it's route. And while there is high density housing there's much more single family homes. The neighborhoods around Expo also have single family homes, but more apartments than the blue line from what I could see. My WAG is that on average there might be 50% more people within a half mile of Expo than there are within a half mile of the blue line. Excerpt from the "What Makes the Metro Blue Different from Other Light Rail Systems?" section of MTA's 1998 study on the Blue Line's astronomical accident and fatality rates: 1. The MBL travels through a high population density area with a diverse varied social-economic community. The high density results in increased pedestrian and automobile traffic as compared to other transit properties. In addition, the communities through which the MBL travels requires special attention to language and literacy issues when disseminating public outreach and education information.Additionally, in the Reply Brief I covered the few warehouses that are directly off of Expo which don't have sufficient turning radius at 4 out of the 6 crossings that actually have 4-quad gates (7th, Degnan, Farmdale and Hauser) and are adjacent to industrial properties. It's going to lead to queuing on the tracks from trucks and cars backed up on the tracks from trucks blocking all lanes of the street. Blue = 75,000 riders over 22 miles = 3.4K rider per mile Expo = 72,000 riders over 15.6 miles = 4.6K riders per mile Expo = 35% more riders per mile. Excerpt from the "What Makes the Metro Blue Different from Other Light Rail Systems?" section of MTA's 1998 study on the Blue Line's astronomical accident and fatality rates: 4. The MBL has one of the highest ridership counts for light rail lines in the Country. This factor is perhaps the most important contributor to the grade crossing accident rate. The high ridership results in increased pedestrian traffic near stations as compared to other light rail systems. In addition, although MTA Operations does not allow high passenger loads dictate safe operations, there is pressure to maintain travel times and headway schedule requirements (e.g., passenger trip from Los Angeles to Long Beach in less than one hour).Reconsideration isn't going to come to these guys based on transit policy or engineering principles. That's not the way the MTA Board of Directors works, nor is it how politics work in this county. At-grade rail pacifies more politicians than grade separated rail. It touches more adjacent land that developers can build upon. Thus, light rail is the preferred mode of transit. Merry Xmas!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 25, 2007 13:38:13 GMT -8
You're welcome!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 25, 2007 13:49:34 GMT -8
Damien,
I would project (another WAG) even higher ridership for expo than that estimate. When completed to Santa Monica, Expo will have 2 MAJOR destinations. The blue line really only has one and a half. Long Beach is up and coming, but it really doesn't compare to downtown or the westside in terms of employment or activities. IIRC the westside, although more spread out than downtown, is our largest employment center. So we can expect Expo to get heavy ridership in both directions whereas the blue line is mainly to or from downtown LA depending on the hour of the day. Even with headways similar to the blue line Expo will have trouble with crowding.
I don't commute on the 10 fwy, but everything that I've heard is that the traffic is towards the beach in the morning and the opposite in the afternoon. And it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 25, 2007 14:19:53 GMT -8
72-75K is the number Thorpe and Snoble were throwing around earlier this year.
Expo's biggest challenge is speed. 58 minutes from Downtown to Santa Monica via ROW and 64 mins via Venice/Sepulveda diversion.
The '94 EIR evaluated a mostly grade separated route (almost all of the at-grade parts 55 mph running with crossing gates at select small streets through industrial areas) and had time down to 37 minutes. Cost was 33% more. I can't remember what the daily ridership was, but I can bet today it would be at least 125K.
Tie it in with the benefit of spur lines (including currently "funded"/"prioritized" Crenshaw), instead of just connections (required transfers = lost riders) and you're into the 150-175K on the ROW. As currently designed there's no capacity for spur lines.
Think about that: twice the number of daily riders in 2020 as currently projected for just 33% more in costs, to say nothing of the nearly 40% travel time reduction in trips from Downtown LA to Santa Monica.
Like I said this has absolutely nothing to do with engineering principles or sound transportation planning.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 25, 2007 15:35:39 GMT -8
So Expo will be 6 miles shorter than the blue line, have the same number of stations, but take 4 minutes longer to travel the entire distance? That doesn't sound good.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 25, 2007 16:25:24 GMT -8
72-75K is the number Thorpe and Snoble were throwing around earlier this year. Expo's biggest challenge is speed. 58 minutes from Downtown to Santa Monica via ROW and 64 mins via Venice/Sepulveda diversion. How is it going to be slower on phase 2? Currently with the Flower Street alignment it's 26 minutes running time, that's 32 minutes for a trip that's 1.7 miles shorter. Is that dependent on the Donwtown Connector or not? I have per Table D.1a based on a Downtown Connector (that included Pasadena and Burbank-Glendale future LRT), the ridership is at 86,840. If we eliminate the connector and it's stops the ridership is at 49,300. Is that including full grade separation of the Downtown segment? That figure would be closer to 45-50% higher in costs - with the extra construction, steel and concrete costs in today's market that figure is rising closer to 65-70% - $907M in ('94 dollars) to $1.3 B ('94 dollars) but that's only including a Santa Monica-USC alignment. Travel times based only on the reports I have would be a 10-15% reduction. Is there new data that has not been distributed yet and Metro rail staff has shown?
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 25, 2007 20:50:39 GMT -8
Damien, where can I find the '94 EIR and other EIRs for other corridors from the 90's? On that same note, Metro's website is horrible with the ELA EIR (missing the appendixes and many graphics). Also, I think the eventual running time will be somewhere between those estimates, something on the order of 42-45 minutes or so.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 25, 2007 22:19:16 GMT -8
...and, if anyone is willing to please just do the math without the opinionating, commentary, editorializing or preaching that this is a horrible idea, what timing would an "Expo Express" Line have that had stops only at:
1) Santa Monica Western Terminus
2) Culver City (Venice/Robertson)
3) Crenshaw Blvd.
4) USC/Exposition Park
I'm not sure if that last stop is even possible for a skip-stop because things get so narrow, but cross-tracking and proper scheduling for rush-hour trains only would be something I could envision Metro doing once the Authority was done with their job (or even while the Authority was working on Phase 2).
Again, please no editorializing--just the math, please.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 25, 2007 23:37:46 GMT -8
Damien, where can I find the '94 EIR and other EIRs for other corridors from the 90's? On that same note, Metro's website is horrible with the ELA EIR (missing the appendixes and many graphics). The Metro Library has those documents. It's located on the 15th floor of Gateway Center (behind Union Station). That's where I usually do my research.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 26, 2007 0:18:57 GMT -8
So Expo will be 6 miles shorter than the blue line, have the same number of stations, but take 4 minutes longer to travel the entire distance? That doesn't sound good. That averages out to 15MPH, almost 1 hour to go 15.5 miles; even the Orange Line runs faster than that.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 26, 2007 7:37:46 GMT -8
Expo Express" Line have that had stops only at: 1) Santa Monica Western Terminus 2) Culver City (Venice/Robertson) 3) Crenshaw Blvd. 4) USC/Exposition Park I'm not sure if that last stop is even possible for a skip-stop because things get so narrow, but cross-tracking and proper scheduling for rush-hour trains only would be something I could envision Metro doing once the Authority was done with their job (or even while the Authority was working on Phase 2). Ken, an Expo Express is dependant on a 3 or 4 track grade separated line in order to operate. If and when the time demands for it when ridership goes through the roof a 4 track King Blvd Subway would be a good solution. King has a higher overall density compared to Expo from La Brea to Expo Park and would be an easy justify a subway without fully disrupting the existing Expo tracks and service to make that work.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 26, 2007 7:58:50 GMT -8
...and, if anyone is willing to please just do the math without the opinionating, commentary, editorializing or preaching that this is a horrible idea, what timing would an "Expo Express" Line have that had stops only at: 1) Santa Monica Western Terminus 2) Culver City (Venice/Robertson) 3) Crenshaw Blvd. 4) USC/Exposition Park I'm not sure if that last stop is even possible for a skip-stop because things get so narrow, but cross-tracking and proper scheduling for rush-hour trains only would be something I could envision Metro doing once the Authority was done with their job (or even while the Authority was working on Phase 2). Again, please no editorializing--just the math, please. It's really a question of how much time is is saved when bypassing each station. Based on what I've experienced on the blue line it's ballpark about a minute per stop. I don't know how many total stations there will be for Expo, but if that works out to skipping about 15 stations it should save 15 minutes over whatever the final running time will be. And if and when you do allow editorializing I DO have some comments about bypassing the blue line transfer stations at Pico and 23rd street, and Western as well!
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 26, 2007 11:50:06 GMT -8
How is it going to be slower on phase 2? Currently with the Flower Street alignment it's 26 minutes running time, that's 32 minutes for a trip that's 1.7 miles shorter. The 58 min figure is from Expo's Phase 2 screening results meeting in Santa Monica. With the USC station and 3-way light at 28th/Flower, run time in phase 1 is 31 & 32 mins, which puts phase 2 at 27 and 26 mins. And that doesn't include slowing the trains around Farmdale. My guess is the times have a lot to do with the street running from just east of the 405 to the terminus, and perhaps the number of major cross streets with heavy vehicular traffic, leading to little to no preemption? Or they may be calculating the worst of both worlds (speed and safety) at some of these crossings where we're both assuming 55 mph running with crossing gates (like Westwood): remove the gates and operate like street-running, which is what they're doing at Crenshaw. Based on the flawed grade crossing policy, Crenshaw didn't qualify but the level of disruption to Crenshaw traffic from crossing gates was too great so Expo operates without crossing gates meaning the train can only go when it has a green light. Just looked at it and yes, it's 37 minutes from Union Station to Santa Monica. So I guess the travel times savings is even greater than I thought. Is the table part of the '94 EIR? I don't have the entire EIR just the relevant photocopied sections. If 49,300 was the projected ridership in '94 (was the forecast year 2010?) and it's 72-75K today for forecast year 2020, that's an increase of nearly 50%. Extrapolate from that and you have 129K in forecast year 2020. Not the existing Flower Street Blue Line section. It was already operational. I'm assuming it presumed a grade separated DTC. Don't know about that. Why would commodities costs increase solely negatively impact elevated and subway. The cost increases, yes, but so do at-grade costs. Take a look at the Eastside contracts. The bulk of cost is not commodities, though they do account for some increases yes. During the vote for the $145 mil increase there was a great discussion that really was aimed right at Thorpe regarding this type of design-build contract and his EIR. I think it was Katz that just kept saying in different ways, why is Expo 170 mil (25%) overbudget when Eastside extension is not? Commodity cost increases should impact both projects the same, if not more for Eastside extension since it has a bored tunnel section, right? Perhaps it begs the point I've made through GLAM over and over again: the type of construction that is seeing a comparative decrease in cost is subterranean, specifically bored tunnel. Everything else is going through the roof. It's significantly more than 10-15%, especially considering the many 35 mph street-running sections on Expo. -55 mph with total preemption/grade separation and stations spaced every mile equals 29-32 traveled miles per hour. -35 mph in street running equals 12-15 traveled miles per hour. There's a significant difference. So Expo will be 6 miles shorter than the blue line, have the same number of stations, but take 4 minutes longer to travel the entire distance? That doesn't sound good. I'd need to look at it more, but my semi-educated guess is the time differential is mostly due to the Blue Line's station spacing and the significant portion that's 55 mph running (what's know as the "cab signal section" from Washington Station to Willow Station). Expo has loads lots of median and side street running that cap the speed at 35 mph. There are lots of lights. And at streets like Crenshaw/Expo, Adams/Flower, HOV/Flower where there are no crossing gates and its street running look for LADOT and Metro to constantly battle as Metro tries to increase the level of priority for Expo, and LADOT argues that it's the cross street (that have significantly more vehicular traffic) should remain the heavy priority. Ken, an Expo Express is dependant on a 3 or 4 track grade separated line in order to operate. Additionally, skip-stop was only possible on the Pasadena Gold Line because demand was so low that Metro could get away with 8-12 min peak hour frequencies (I can't remember which it was). Heck they didn't (and still don't) even have 3 car trains. If ridership projections, as Metro says, require 4 or even 5 minute headways with 3 car trains on Expo there's not enough time between trains to allow skip-stop. Otherwise they would have already implemented it on the Blue Line. I wonder if it is possible to get away skip-stop with sidings if the platforms were fitted with 4 cars track had lots of sidings in the 35 mph running section. Grade separated of course. It's really a question of how much time is is saved when bypassing each station. Based on what I've experienced on the blue line it's ballpark about a minute per stop. I don't know how many total stations there will be for Expo, but if that works out to skipping about 15 stations it should save 15 minutes over whatever the final running time will be. I can't remember the method, but it would be a little bit more difficult to calculate than it seems. Time in the station is dependent on everything including whether the platform is nearside or farside and whether its street running or cab signal. Don't forget the second most used bus line in the system: Vermont. Western is the third most used bus line in the system. If and when the time demands for it when ridership goes through the roof a 4 track King Blvd Subway would be a good solution. King has a higher overall density compared to Expo from La Brea to Expo Park and would be an easy justify a subway without fully disrupting the existing Expo tracks and service to make that work. Yes, today - but I doubt it would stay that way. When you look at the development potential around Crenshaw station, La Brea station and down Jefferson you can see, if done right, Exposition will likely surpass King in density. And I just don't see the political leadership to push a subway just 0.5-1 mile south of Expo...through South LA nonetheless.
|
|