|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 5, 2010 14:25:53 GMT -8
Why would it alienate Red Line riders? Like I said, have a third line run from BH Airport, Hollywood, and Downtown (and eventually, the SGV).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 5, 2010 14:26:04 GMT -8
Option 2 is ok but you create an extra transfer for people from SFV going Downtown (Orange to Red, Red to Purple). While in general, it is ideal to have 90 degree lines cross as a transfer station as oppose to turning the line (the "X" mark the spot layout), you also have to balance it with the reality of traffic pattern. Most Red line passengers will want to terminate in Downtown, not South LA.
The best solution is this - call it option 6 if you will: South Vermont branch continues North and share track with Red line through Hollywood, then continue westward as Pink Line so it offers one seat ride from South LA to West LA, while leaving Red and Purple line as is.
The advantages are:
a. No extra trains going Downtown... so congestion not an issue b. SFV is still an one-transfer ride Downtown (Orange-Red) c. Start of a LA "Circle" line forming half of the arc of the circle - The other arc of the circle will be formed by the 405 line and Harbor Subdivision... so eventually, we will get a train service that runs on the tracks of Vermont branch, North Hollywood branch, Santa Monica branch, Wilshire branch, 405 Corridor branch, and Harbor Subdivision - similar to London's Circle line that runs the tracks of several other lines or Tokyo's Yamanote line that runs on various JR tracks.
The disadvantages:
a. We have to construct the Pink line AND make sure Hollywood/Highland can handle through traffic b. We have to re-built Wilshire/Vermont c. The "Circle" probably won't be complete in my lifetime
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 14:40:04 GMT -8
Why would it alienate Red Line riders? Like I said, have a third line run from BH Airport, Hollywood, and Downtown (and eventually, the SGV). Option 2 as I defined it would alienate Red Line riders, because I defined Option 2 as "Downtown only served by the Purple Line." Thus, as I said, these riders "would then have to transfer at Wilshire/Vermont" Yes, your suggestion would probably not alienate Red Line riders. Your suggestion is kind of an Option 2 and Option 5 hybrid, adding new branches to San Pedro, Burbank, Whittier, and the SGV.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 5, 2010 15:38:49 GMT -8
Option 2 would alienate a lot of current Red Line riders from the Valley/Hollywood, who would then have to transfer at Wilshire/Vermont. The Red Line is currently Metro's busiest line. I think it should be subway only north of Gage, then elevated south of Gage. I would take the Vermont branch down only as far as the Green Line. Maybe they could tie it into the Silver and Green Line station at Figueroa/I-105. Keeping the simple Option 2 might be easier from a few perspectives even though I agree in that some Valley and Hollwood commuters would be disadvantaged. Also, I agree with the elevated south of Gage, which is one of the great features of Vermont. A connection here with Vermont and the Green Line would be awesome as you have two grade separated and very fast routes. Connect the Green Line with Norwalk HSR and you have some very fast comprehensive routes that will compete with the car in time savings even with transfers. I'd think with Vermont, Wilshire and a well connected Green Line's ridership you would have short headways thereby eliminating much of the "pain" in transferring. Nothing like transferring from the Gold Line with its 15-20 minute headways. It would be easier than branching the lines from a user perspective and operationally as well. Overall, I think Vermont South makes more sense if there is no Crenshaw though. With Crenshaw, there will be little chance we'll see it in my lifetime.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 5, 2010 16:16:59 GMT -8
I think it should be subway only north of Gage, then elevated south of Gage. I would take the Vermont branch down only as far as the Green Line. Maybe they could tie it into the Silver and Green Line station at Figueroa/I-105. Elevated stations at Florence, Manchester and Century definitely work considering how wide Vermont is past Gage. Would there be any glaring visual impacts that would happen here though if this were an el? Also, The Harbor Freeway station on the Green Line? Are there issues with the Vermont station that it can't go straight there?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 17:21:14 GMT -8
Also, The Harbor Freeway station on the Green Line? Are there issues with the Vermont station that it can't go straight there? None at all, I just figured it would make a good connection with the Green and Silver Lines, not to mention a couple dozen other bus lines.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 5, 2010 18:18:46 GMT -8
I've always dreamed about the sort of rail transit map where you could get from one city to the next without getting on Amtrak or intercity rail. Metrolink ALMOST connects to the Coaster in San Diego. More than almost. They meet in Oceanside. The OC Metrolink afternoon train arrives in Oceanside at 5:30 and the Coaster departs at 5:35. An hour wait for a few other trains.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 5, 2010 18:31:38 GMT -8
Did I miss something? We already covered at the beginning of this thread that merging with the red/purple lines is very unlikely based on the existing configuration. Option 1 is by far the most likely. The next most likely would be an option where the Vermont line continues to somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 5, 2010 20:34:24 GMT -8
You have to decide what service pattern(s) are desired before you can determine where/how to connect a South Vermont corridor into the Red/Purple Lines. I can think of the five main candidates for potential service patterns: - Option 1: South Vermont branch dead-ends at Wilshire/Vermont. Red and Purple do not change.
- Option 2: South Vermont branch merges with Red Line. Downtown only served by the Purple Line.
- Option 3: South Vermont branch merges with Purple Line. Downtown only served by the Red Line.
- Option 4: South Vermont branch splits between Hollywood and Wilshire. Thus each of the four branches is served by two lines.
- Option 5: South Vermont branch serves Downtown in addition to the Red and Purple Lines.
I think Option 1 is the most realistic because it is the simplest. Option 4 would do best in balancing the loads, but would be very complicated to construct. I think Option 5 is unrealistic: it would mean three lines sharing tracks through Downtown L.A. From a practical standpoint, none of these are constructable as each would require new junctions on an existing set of tunnels. That is not minor work and would effectively need the lines shut down to build. As cited elsewhere here, over 150,000 riders use the Red + Purple lines. A large share travel right through this very station. Option 1 is better... Until you try and figure out how to get trains onto the tracks and/or maintain them. Btw, where is the maintenance yard for the downtown streetcar?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 6, 2010 8:32:27 GMT -8
Option 1 is a clear winner, and I'm thinking light rail on Vermont instead of HRT, since it would best to have the rail directly connecting to the Green line. Why have 2 transfers if you can avoid at least one? Even with HRT you would need one transfer at the Green line, so it all kinda works out the same to me.
But this is so far off into the future. It shocks me that the estimated time to construct MOS1 of the Purple line to Fairfax is 68 months, that's almost 6 years, and I am assuming that is once construction is started.
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Oct 6, 2010 23:41:19 GMT -8
I've always dreamed about the sort of rail transit map where you could get from one city to the next without getting on Amtrak or intercity rail. Metrolink ALMOST connects to the Coaster in San Diego. From L.A. to San Francisco, the gap is pretty wide: between Ventura County (Metrolink) and Gilroy (Caltrain). I dunno how you bridge that ;D You can ALMOST do that on the east coast, with VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT and PATH. You just have to fill in the holes in northern Maryland and southern New Jersey. Starting next year, you will be able to take a subway from Toyko to Yokohama on the Fukutoshin and Minatomirai lines. Close on the east coast one. ;D Actually, the only gap is between Perryville on MARC in northeast MD and the Newark/Wilmington SEPTA Line (used to be R2) at Newark, DE. SEPTA connects to NJ Transit at the (very boring, and freezing cold on New Year's morning) Trenton station. However, the SEPTA to Newark doesn't run all the time so it depends on when you want to get around. DELDOT (Delaware Department of Transportation) explored connecting SEPTA in Newark (it subsidizes all SEPTA service in DE) to the MARC station in Perryvile but determined it to be cost prohibitive. I went to school in DC and grew up in Wilmington, DE and I tried to figure out if I could get home using just the regional rails because Amtrak tickets are $$$$. I concluded it'd be more of a pain for my family to drive to Perryville to pick me up than to hop on the Greyhound.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 7, 2010 4:29:49 GMT -8
But this is so far off into the future. It shocks me that the estimated time to construct MOS1 of the Purple line to Fairfax is 68 months, that's almost 6 years, and I am assuming that is once construction is started. That sounds about right. When the Mid-Wilshire segment was built, the Thrifty and the adjacent strip mall at Wilshire and Western were condemned in 1990, and service began in 1996.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 7, 2010 15:48:38 GMT -8
Did I miss something? We already covered at the beginning of this thread that merging with the red/purple lines is very unlikely based on the existing configuration. Option 1 is by far the most likely. The next most likely would be an option where the Vermont line continues to somewhere else. Again, in the long run, adjusting the configuration is the best option.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 7, 2010 21:04:33 GMT -8
Again, in the long run, adjusting the configuration is the best option. Completely false. There are many significant problems with interlining a southern Vermont line with the red/purple lines. By far the best option would be to serve a different destination and allow for a transfer to the red/purple lines.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 7, 2010 21:44:24 GMT -8
How is making it less convenient for Vermont Corridor-adjacent commuters to get to Hollywood the best option?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 7, 2010 21:59:43 GMT -8
How is making it less convenient for Vermont Corridor-adjacent commuters to get to Hollywood the best option? In order to allow maximum flexibility you would have to tear up the existing Wilshire/Vermont station and start over. And that will never happen. But let's say you did, and you have Metro run Vermont trains to Hollywood. What about people on the Vermont Corridor going to Downtown? Then they will have to transfer. So how is this convenient for them? OK, you might say, then run half of the Vermont Corridor trains to Hollywood, and the other half to Downtown. But then half the time, your riders are either going to have to wait for the "correct" train, or transfer anyway when they get to Wilshire/Vermont. My point is: a one-seat ride is wonderful to have in principle, but in the scheme of things not important enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars redoing the connections at Wilshire/Vermont. Transferring between trains is not that difficult.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 8, 2010 6:11:38 GMT -8
I think another thing to take into consideration is where the South Vermont Line terminal would be located in relation to the Red/Purple Line station.
Is there going to be a transfer tunnel from the top level or the bottom level and would it be a long walk? Will people have to exit the station fully just to get to the terminal (which would be really bad)?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 8, 2010 6:39:10 GMT -8
In order to allow maximum flexibility you would have to tear up the existing Wilshire/Vermont station and start over. And that will never happen. Couldn't you realign the tunnels? The existing bus line (204) doesn't go to Downtown. Besides the Silver Line is only a couple blocks away.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 8, 2010 7:32:53 GMT -8
In order to allow maximum flexibility you would have to tear up the existing Wilshire/Vermont station and start over. And that will never happen. Couldn't you realign the tunnels? The tunnels have to connect. The existing bus line (204) doesn't go to Downtown. Besides the Silver Line is only a couple blocks away. Exactly my point: those people will have to transfer. Any way you configure the connections, somebody's going to have to transfer. So why rebuild everything, including trackwork and tunnels when you could just terminate the line at Vermont/Wilshire and connect the platforms? That's much easier, and much less expensive. Now maybe your question is: why should people from down south have to transfer when people from Hollywood and Westside don't? The answer is that the Red and Purple Lines were built first, and were built with no accommodation for a Vermont Line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 8, 2010 7:45:59 GMT -8
I think another thing to take into consideration is where the South Vermont Line terminal would be located in relation to the Red/Purple Line station. Is there going to be a transfer tunnel from the top level or the bottom level and would it be a long walk? Will people have to exit the station fully just to get to the terminal (which would be really bad)? The existing Wilshire/Vermont station has two levels, each with a platform on the south (actually southwest) of that level's track. This means the two platforms could connect directly (by stairs, escalators, or whatever) to the Vermont Line terminal station, just by opening up the southern wall of the existing station. The whole thing could be done so compactly, that you really wouldn't even need another entrance: Vermont Line riders could use the existing entrance. (Although of course I would always advise that more entrances are better.)
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 8, 2010 13:24:32 GMT -8
Whether there is hypothetical transfer or not, there will need to be a rail to rail connection. Otherwise, please explain how trains get in the tunnel... For daily service. To return to barn. And so forth?
I maintain that this is not constructable and am quite frankly besmirked it is still an item.
Like another said, there is more possibility of another new line serving this and that is connected to something else entirely, such as Vermont to Glendale or something.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 8, 2010 13:35:28 GMT -8
Whether there is hypothetical transfer or not, there will need to be a rail to rail connection. Otherwise, please explain how trains get in the tunnel... For daily service. To return to barn. And so forth? I maintain that this is not constructable and am quite frankly besmirked it is still an item. Like another said, there is more possibility of another new line serving this and that is connected to something else entirely, such as Vermont to Glendale or something. The connection would be at the Green Line. Yet another reason to make this LRT. Besmirked? Is that a word?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 8, 2010 15:57:55 GMT -8
Exactly my point: those people will have to transfer. Any way you configure the connections, somebody's going to have to transfer. So why rebuild everything, including trackwork and tunnels when you could just terminate the line at Vermont/Wilshire and connect the platforms? That's much easier, and much less expensive. I hope it doesn't sound like i'm arguing with you, but I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that people to the south should be able to get to Downtown without a transfer; i'm saying that people to the south should be able to get to Hollywood without a transfer. It's better to choose to serve at least one group than neither (making Vermont/Wilshire the terminus), because a good transit system involves as little tranfers as possible. And this is why I mentioned the 204 bus line. Often times, when possible, new rail lines are built on existing bus routes. And currently, the 204 doesn't go to Downtown, so it's obvious there is more demand for access to points north of Wilshire/Vermont than points east - especially when the Harbor Transitway is only a short walk away. Hope this makes sense. A perfect example of not planning ahead. Like another said, there is more possibility of another new line serving this and that is connected to something else entirely, such as Vermont to Glendale or something. The Yellow line is already going to Glendale.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 8, 2010 17:05:22 GMT -8
That is a good reminder about the so-called Yellow line.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that line is in the long range transportation plan, but it is not funded. Or, there is no commitment to funding it.
In fact, aren't there many lines in the LRTP that are not funded? Or have a commitment toward funding?
And, there is no long range rail plan... Where there is a concentrated and concerted effort in that plan to envision a true network... instead, what is in the LRTP more or less represents a hodge-podge of rail projects that really have their roots or origins with the political fancies of elected officials.
There is no Rail Network Plan that Metro is working toward. Right?
Besmirched... Isn't that a word?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 8, 2010 17:06:13 GMT -8
i'm saying that people to the south should be able to get to Hollywood without a transfer. It's better to choose to serve at least one group than neither (making Vermont/Wilshire the terminus), because a good transit system involves as little tranfers as possible. Right there is your problem. Transfers are a part of riding public transportation. The people that complain about having to transfer are not the ones that should be dictating system design because they usually don't ride anyway. The goal of transit design - especially in a multi-nodal area like LA - is to serve as many critical destinations as possible. The reason that routes share tracks is not because that provides a better service, but because there's not money enough to build a parallel line or a line that might better serve a slightly different area. Now if you're saying that we don't have the money to build a separate line and that interlining with the red/purple lines is a good compromise, then perhaps. But even then I wouldn't agree and would suggest that the significant amount of money required for the construction that you describe would be better spent on other transit projects that would increase coverage and mobility for the region.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 8, 2010 17:18:11 GMT -8
This brings to mind some of the junctions in the New York subway system. As I recall, there are some places where transferring passengers have to walk through a block-long tunnel to get from one line to another. Of course, New York at one time had three different subway systems, and I've heard that locals still refer to the IRT, BMT and IND lines, even though they came under the same management about 70 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 8, 2010 17:50:12 GMT -8
Well, a lomng walk for a transfer is not ideal, but it is also not uncommon, particularly with bigger and more complicated situations.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 10, 2010 16:32:14 GMT -8
That is a good reminder about the so-called Yellow line. Correct me if I am wrong, but that line is in the long range transportation plan, but it is not funded. Or, there is no commitment to funding it. In fact, aren't there many lines in the LRTP that are not funded? Or have a commitment toward funding? Yes, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve Metro's attention. Funding should be pushed for ALL of them. Also dense areas of the county may merit funding first, but further densification in low-density regions won't happen if it isn't given the opportunity. Actually much of these lines in the LRTP originated from residents concerned about traffic. Just because something has no funding doesn't mean it shouldn't be a plan. This here-and-now ideology is how we ended up with the very poorly configured Wilshire/Vermont station in the first place. To be honest, we need to start ponying up and stop complaining about funding problems and avoid assuming that what is included in the Measure R/30-10 initiative are the ONLY thing's that'll get done in the next 25-30 years. We shouldn't have to wait decades and decades for LA to develop a massive rail network, especially when the expansive rail system it once had was torn down so quickly. I believe that as the Greater LA region grows differently (IOW, encouraging density and discouraging sprawl in San Bernardino, Oxnard, and Santa Ana), the growth in demand for a more expansive rail system will accelerate. LRTP means Long Range Transportation Plan, doesn't it? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 10, 2010 18:04:34 GMT -8
Right there is your problem. Transfers are a part of riding public transportation. The people that complain about having to transfer are not the ones that should be dictating system design because they usually don't ride anyway. The goal of transit design - especially in a multi-nodal area like LA - is to serve as many critical destinations as possible. The reason that routes share tracks is not because that provides a better service, but because there's not money enough to build a parallel line or a line that might better serve a slightly different area. Now if you're saying that we don't have the money to build a separate line and that interlining with the red/purple lines is a good compromise, then perhaps. But even then I wouldn't agree and would suggest that the significant amount of money required for the construction that you describe would be better spent on other transit projects that would increase coverage and mobility for the region. I'm going to disagree with you here about interlining: interlining can sometimes be a very useful way to kill 2 birds with one stone. Take the Red/Purple interline through downtown: Not only do both lines come from far away places to the downtown area (or will at least), but it means there is twice as much service through downtown stations. So, anybody who just wants to get to the other side of downtown doesn't have to wait very long for a train, and that could potentially be a lot of people who say live in the one side of downtown but work on the other, or people just going on their lunch break. Interlining should be considered when designing a rail network, and I know I try to work it in in intelligent ways when I make fantasy maps ;D As for the Rail Network Plan, to my knowledge there's no such thing, but there really should be. The isolated project methodology has already gotten us into trouble several times (a la the Little Tokyo station rebuilding) and will probably continue to cause problems as our network expands.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Oct 11, 2010 12:04:26 GMT -8
Interlining, for the reasons that tobias087 described, is inherently useful especially if you are serving a dense location like DTLA. The caveat though is that the lines have to be fully grade separated to achieve the low headways needed to provide adequate service on both branches. The light rail lines are constrainted in their frequency by at-grade segments and the whims of LADOT about signal priority. While a single light rail line might have a theoretical maximum frequency of 2.5 minutes that is doubled by the DTC to 5 minutes per branch. On a fully grade separated line with branches though, we could probably run trains every 90 seconds (like in Moscow) and still have 3 minute headways on each branch. Therefore, shoehorning all the light rail lines into one downtown tunnel is less effective than it is for the heavy rail lines.
|
|