|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 31, 2009 13:19:15 GMT -8
Some of the comments about the New York subway system appear to be from those from those unfamiliar with it. "Average" speeds are not indicative of overall performance because the system is a combination of local trains (which are quite slow) and express trains (which are quite fast). It is possible to travel from midtown Manhattan to outer Queens in a very few minutes on the "7" (rush hour express), "E" or "F", or to the Bronx on the "D", "4" or "5", or Brooklyn on the "A', "2" or "5". The adept New York commuter can move from a local to an express or vice versa and shorten their trip significantly. It would be nice if we could build our system in a way that would enable express running. Sadly, it just is cost-prohibitive. Can you tell me what is Fast and Slow? With the local service spaced between 3 to 4 stations per mile, you can't accelerate and get much overall speed, so how many miles per hour do the locals travel? Now for the express, they are much slower than the Los Angeles Subway or our various light rail lines. Why don't you actually compare both services before declaring that the NY express trains are really fast? They stop every mile or so, but do they even match to our miles per hour of our non-street running services? Be careful when you call the legacy, grandfather NYC systems better than our LA lines.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 31, 2009 15:04:51 GMT -8
Yes compared to NYCT the entire LA Metro system is "express" because our stations are farther apart. The Second Avenue Subway in NYC will be also have stations farther apart and no express trains. The stations won't be as far apart as ours, but it will have about 25% fewer stations compared to the Lexington Avenue line that it parallels.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 31, 2009 15:07:01 GMT -8
The blue line has the poles on the sidewalk on Washington. It doesn't seem to be a big deal.
I don't like the 90 degree bend design for the realigned station, but other than that it's ok.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 1, 2010 1:37:18 GMT -8
I like the right-angle station (new design). The angled station (old design) hides the platform from the street. The new design puts it right along 4th Street, allowing a neat integration with the surrounding geography.
I don't see Santa Monica's efforts in any way as anti-rail. They just want it to work with everything else. The city has several plans in motion for the Civic Center, the Pier, the Mall and the Promenade. City planners are looking at all of these plans when making recommendations to Metro.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 1, 2010 2:45:42 GMT -8
I like the right-angle station (new design). The angled station (old design) hides the platform from the street. The new design puts it right along 4th Street, allowing a neat integration with the surrounding geography. Does this look like a station hidden from the view? In addition there are very few pedestrians on 4th St south of Colorado Ave. This section of 4th St is mainly used for access to and from the freeway. With the platforms pushed against the freeway ramp, the new station would actually be less visible to the people. Trains don't function in the same way as buses when they make turns. The speed limit for that 90-degree turn would be very low because of geometrical limitations of steel wheels on steel rails. It would take too long for a 270-ft-long train to cross the street at that speed limit. The patrons wouldn't be happy with this extra addition to the travel time. There is no place for the patrons to wait for the train with the new station design or to wait after they get off the train, as three tracks now cross the station plaza.
|
|
davek
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by davek on Jan 4, 2010 12:12:25 GMT -8
Some of the comments about the New York subway system appear to be from those from those unfamiliar with it. "Average" speeds are not indicative of overall performance because the system is a combination of local trains (which are quite slow) and express trains (which are quite fast). It is possible to travel from midtown Manhattan to outer Queens in a very few minutes on the "7" (rush hour express), "E" or "F", or to the Bronx on the "D", "4" or "5", or Brooklyn on the "A', "2" or "5". The adept New York commuter can move from a local to an express or vice versa and shorten their trip significantly. It would be nice if we could build our system in a way that would enable express running. Sadly, it just is cost-prohibitive. Can you tell me what is Fast and Slow? With the local service spaced between 3 to 4 stations per mile, you can't accelerate and get much overall speed, so how many miles per hour do the locals travel? Now for the express, they are much slower than the Los Angeles Subway or our various light rail lines. Why don't you actually compare both services before declaring that the NY express trains are really fast? They stop every mile or so, but do they even match to our miles per hour of our non-street running services? Be careful when you call the legacy, grandfather NYC systems better than our LA lines. "Better" is a relative term, no? I wasn't criticizing the LA systems, just stating a simple fact, i.e., that "average" speeds do not tell the whole story about the NYC subways. Nor does station distance. For example, the A and D trains do not stop from 59th street until 125th street, skipping seven stations; from 59th to 161st (Yankee Stadium) on the D is only 2 stops, including a tunnel under the Harlem River between Manhattan and the Bronx. The E makes only 4 stops between 51st/Lxington and Sutphin Bl. in Jamaica/Queens, the transfer point to the AirTrain to JFK, skipping 10 stations. It is not a ctiticism of the LA system to point out inaccurate assumptions about the NYC system. No need to get defensive.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 4, 2010 14:53:38 GMT -8
In addition there are very few pedestrians on 4th St south of Colorado Ave. This section of 4th St is mainly used for access to and from the freeway. With the platforms pushed against the freeway ramp, the new station would actually be less visible to the people. There are very not a lot of pedestrians on Colorado Ave either, right now. However, I expect a lot of this to change once Expo opens. Trains don't function in the same way as buses when they make turns. The speed limit for that 90-degree turn would be very low because of geometrical limitations of steel wheels on steel rails. It would take too long for a 270-ft-long train to cross the street at that speed limit. The patrons wouldn't be happy with this extra addition to the travel time. The radius of the turn is not going to significantly impact the length of the ride. They will be making a full stop before turning with either design. There is no place for the patrons to wait for the train with the new station design or to wait after they get off the train, as three tracks now cross the station plaza. The city is working on a comprehensive plan for the area that integrates new green space (the "Palisades Garden Walk") with the redesigned mall, the pier, and new housing between Olympic and Broadway. I don't think the city sees the need for a plaza at the terminal, and neither do I.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 5, 2010 17:49:22 GMT -8
The question of sidewalk versus middle of right-of-way line poles brings up a third alternative. I'm not familiar with the buildings along the proposed route, but in the old days, downtown trolley wires were often suspended from span wires tied to anchor bolts set into buildings. Some of the older structures in downtown LA and Pasadena still have these relics of long-gone trolley lines. I would guess that buildings would have to be at least 3 stories for this to be an option. Then there's the question of whether modern buildings are sturdy enough to support trolley wire (my mental YouTube runs a fantasy video of the line crew tightening up a span wire and pulling the front off a cheaply-built edifice. Oops!)
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 5, 2010 19:00:05 GMT -8
The question of sidewalk versus middle of right-of-way line poles brings up a third alternative. I'm not familiar with the buildings along the proposed route, but in the old days, downtown trolley wires were often suspended from span wires tied to anchor bolts set into buildings. Some of the older structures in downtown LA and Pasadena still have these relics of long-gone trolley lines. I would guess that buildings would have to be at least 3 stories for this to be an option. Then there's the question of whether modern buildings are sturdy enough to support trolley wire (my mental YouTube runs a fantasy video of the line crew tightening up a span wire and pulling the front off a cheaply-built edifice. Oops!) Bob I must say, that sounds like a very good idea. I wonder if there are issues in terms of property rights, lawsuits, liability and compensation. Shrinking sidewalks = bad
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 5, 2010 20:59:47 GMT -8
In addition there are very few pedestrians on 4th St south of Colorado Ave. This section of 4th St is mainly used for access to and from the freeway. With the platforms pushed against the freeway ramp, the new station would actually be less visible to the people. There are very not a lot of pedestrians on Colorado Ave either, right now. However, I expect a lot of this to change once Expo opens. The radius of the turn is not going to significantly impact the length of the ride. They will be making a full stop before turning with either design. There is no place for the patrons to wait for the train with the new station design or to wait after they get off the train, as three tracks now cross the station plaza. The city is working on a comprehensive plan for the area that integrates new green space (the "Palisades Garden Walk") with the redesigned mall, the pier, and new housing between Olympic and Broadway. I don't think the city sees the need for a plaza at the terminal, and neither do I. The trains will slow down to a slow speed before the curve either way with or without a sharp turn. But at the curve 9 MPH vs. 4 MPH makes a lot of difference: d = 500 ft Current design v = 9 MPH --> t = 38 seconds 90-degree design v = 4 MPH --> t = 85 seconds So, the 90-degree design is (roughly) 47 seconds slower. A nice station plaza is always needed for a terminal station. Surrounding green or whatever space is irrelevant as far as the need for a station plaza is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jan 9, 2010 14:32:44 GMT -8
"So, the 90-degree design is (roughly) 47 seconds slower."
To put that in perspective, the addition of a station at Farmdale will add about 50 seconds to total trip time, as well.
90 degree turn = bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 9, 2010 15:03:46 GMT -8
"So, the 90-degree design is (roughly) 47 seconds slower." To put that in perspective, the addition of a station at Farmdale will add about 50 seconds to total trip time, as well. 90 degree turn = bad idea. I know for sure that the original design is 9 MPH, as written on the conceptual drawing in the FEIR, which is already pretty slow. I made the calculations for the 90-degree-turn for 4 MPH. Even if it is 5 MPH, it would take 68 seconds to clear the crossing and that would be 68 - 38 = 30 seconds slower than the original design. 30 seconds here, 30 seconds there, a minute here, a minute there, it all adds up. This section of the line will already be the slowest along the entire Phase 1 and 2 alignment and it doesn't make sense to make it any slower for marginal benefits if any, which would exceed the patience limits of the people and discourage them from using the line. I wish they had got rid of that stupid hotel (Holiday Inn Express?) and put the station on the south side of Colorado between Ocean and Main. It would be a great place for a station. I wish I had thought more about the Santa Monica terminus during the early stages of the FEIR. Perhaps it could have made a difference. The hotel could be moved to the Sears Auto and the station could be built in the place of the hotel. Unfortunately the planning department of the City of Santa Monica has so far received a C at best as far as the Expo Line is concerned. They have initially come up with some good ideas like Colorado street running but then they also have kept pushing bad ideas like track narrowing, sidewalk narrowing, parking retention, curb-radius retention, choice of the terminus station location, 90-degree tracks, etc. Something is not right here and some guy keeps coming up with bad ideas. It's probably that guy they hired to come up with alternative design solutions for the Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 9, 2010 19:49:49 GMT -8
I got some information yesterday about Colorado from Expo. The newer terminus design was in response to Metro's (1) issues about the track grade and (2) wanting the crossovers to be closer to the station.
Expo got this far with the two designs in the FEIR, but expects more refinement between the two by the design-build contractor.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 4, 2010 16:21:07 GMT -8
I saw today that the City of Santa Monica is nearly finished demolishing the Sears Automotive Center, site of the 4th & Colorado Expo Line terminus station. Looking east on Colorado. Here's the view from the small hill behind it, off of 5th Street. Just the street wall remains. The larger building construction in the background is the former Macy's / Broadway becoming a new Bloomingdale's as part of the Santa Monica Place reconstruction.
|
|