|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 8, 2011 8:38:56 GMT -8
In the case of Vermont Avenue, the choice of light rail vs. heavy rail completely depends on whether or not a direct junction with the Red Line is feasible. If the funds don't exist for that kind of project, or if the impact on the Red Line is too great, then they have to go with light-rail. This is because without a junction to the Red Line, the heavy rail Vermont trains would not be able to get to a heavy rail service facility. Do you WANT it to be Light Rail? Because if your a transit advocate, I would think you're first choice would be Heavy Rail. I want it to be built. A heavy rail fully-underground subway down Vermont would cost several billion dollars. Why are you so obsessed with heavy rail? Have you ever rode the Green Line in Boston? That's a very heavily-used subway system, with a quarter million riders per day, that also happens to use light rail.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 8, 2011 9:11:40 GMT -8
I want it to be built. A heavy rail fully-underground subway down Vermont would cost several billion dollars. I don't think it should be fully underground. I think there should be a Gage Ave portal, as described by the article, to allow an above-grade section. And the reality is that, with budgets the way they are, the project is not gonna get very far right now, whether it's HRT or LRT. You might as well make it HRT.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 8, 2011 9:31:15 GMT -8
Do you WANT it to be Light Rail? Because if your a transit advocate, I would think you're first choice would be Heavy Rail. I want it to be built. A heavy rail fully-underground subway down Vermont would cost several billion dollars. Why are you so obsessed with heavy rail? Have you ever rode the Green Line in Boston? That's a very heavily-used subway system, with a quarter million riders per day, that also happens to use light rail. Or build it like the Green Line in Los Angeles. A fully grade-seperated light rail line with speeds up to 65 mph!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 8, 2011 9:50:20 GMT -8
Or build it like the Green Line in Los Angeles. A fully grade-seperated light rail line with speeds up to 65 mph! But without the freeway trapping it. I guess. But to me, from a connectability standpoint, as well as looking at bus ridership numbers on the Vermont bus line, HRT is better in the long run. BTW, how fast can Heavy Rail go anyway? I read somewhere that it can fly at 80 mph. And I thought our LRT vehicles can only go up to 55 Mph, no?
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Feb 8, 2011 9:51:56 GMT -8
I want it to be built. A heavy rail fully-underground subway down Vermont would cost several billion dollars. Why are you so obsessed with heavy rail? Have you ever rode the Green Line in Boston? That's a very heavily-used subway system, with a quarter million riders per day, that also happens to use light rail. Or build it like the Green Line in Los Angeles. A fully grade-seperated light rail line with speeds up to 65 mph! If a South Vermont LRT connected with the Green LRT - you could conceivably have a one seat ride from Wilshire/Vermont to LAX - which isn't too bad. By the way, how long would this line go from Wilshire to I-105? Say about 35 minutes or so barring delays?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 8, 2011 10:49:05 GMT -8
Or build it like the Green Line in Los Angeles. A fully grade-seperated light rail line with speeds up to 65 mph! But without the freeway trapping it. I guess. But to me, from a connectability standpoint, as well as looking at bus ridership numbers on the Vermont bus line, HRT is better in the long run. BTW, how fast can Heavy Rail go anyway? I read somewhere that it can fly at 80 mph. And I thought our LRT vehicles can only go up to 55 Mph, no? The current Siemens Cars on the Green Line can go up to 65mph, the Breda LRV'sup to 75mph, but that will depedent upon stop spacing if the line averages just a mile between stops going over 55mph isn't saving you that much in time and you use more energy to make the speed as soon as the vehicle reaches the above 55mph speed it will have to break and decelerate a short time later. I want it to be built. A heavy rail fully-underground subway down Vermont would cost several billion dollars. I don't think it should be fully underground. I think there should be a Gage Ave portal, as described by the article, to allow an above-grade section. And the reality is that, with budgets the way they are, the project is not gonna get very far right now, whether it's HRT or LRT. You might as well make it HRT. Well what is the difference in using LRV's but run in longer trains? Wouldn't that give you the HEAVY capacity in Heavy Rail without needing to purchase a new procurement in another set of Heavy Rail cars along with the LRV's
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 8, 2011 11:37:37 GMT -8
The current Siemens Cars on the Green Line can go up to 65mph, the Breda LRV'sup to 75mph, but that will depedent upon stop spacing if the line averages just a mile between stops going over 55mph isn't saving you that much in time and you use more energy to make the speed as soon as the vehicle reaches the above 55mph speed it will have to break and decelerate a short time later. Well what is the difference in using LRV's but run in longer trains? Wouldn't that give you the HEAVY capacity in Heavy Rail without needing to purchase a new procurement in another set of Heavy Rail cars along with the LRV's Yeah, but if we were to use this logic, wouldn't it mean that LA doesn't need HRT technology AT ALL on transit lines? And again, bus ridership and connectability is also an issue. If there was any way to do what the article proposed, I would take it.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 8, 2011 11:57:12 GMT -8
Or build it like the Green Line in Los Angeles. A fully grade-seperated light rail line with speeds up to 65 mph! If a South Vermont LRT connected with the Green LRT - you could conceivably have a one seat ride from Wilshire/Vermont to LAX - which isn't too bad. By the way, how long would this line go from Wilshire to I-105? Say about 35 minutes or so barring delays? From a construction perspective, I see no reason to tie this line into the Green Line. Yes, a one-seat ride to LAX would be nice, but so would a one-seat ride everywhere. Transfers are part of riding public transit, like it or not. This would also probably involve heavy reconstruction near or on the I-105 freeway, which would disrupt both Green Line service AND the freeway. Instead, the line should continue south to serve locations along/near the Harbor freeway (an area now served by the joke known as the Silver Line). Those areas need rapid transit more than the commuters from the north needing a one-seat ride to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 8, 2011 12:01:38 GMT -8
My point is that light rail has the capacity to move huge volumes of people, just like heavy rail. BTW, I do not prefer light rail over heavy rail. All I'm saying is, light rail is an option.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 8, 2011 13:25:17 GMT -8
By the way, how long would this line go from Wilshire to I-105? Say about 35 minutes or so barring delays? From 7th street/Metro Center to the Imperial/Wilmington Green Line station via the Blue Line is 22 minutes. Keep in mind, the Blue Line runs street running on Washington, and goes 2 miles east-west on Washington. Now, considering that the Vermont corridor will be 100% grade seperated, follow a straight path north-south on Vermont between Wilshire and the I-105, I could see this being 15 minutes. Blue Line schedule: www.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/images/801.pdf
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 8, 2011 14:11:03 GMT -8
The current Siemens Cars on the Green Line can go up to 65mph, the Breda LRV's up to 75mph, but that will depedent upon stop spacing if the line averages just a mile between stops going over 55mph isn't saving you that much in time and you use more energy to make the speed as soon as the vehicle reaches the above 55mph speed it will have to break and decelerate a short time later. Well what is the difference in using LRV's but run in longer trains? Wouldn't that give you the HEAVY capacity in Heavy Rail without needing to purchase a new procurement in another set of Heavy Rail cars along with the LRV's Yeah, but if we were to use this logic, wouldn't it mean that LA doesn't need HRT technology AT ALL on transit lines? And again, bus ridership and connectability is also an issue. If there was any way to do what the article proposed, I would take it. Sir, you've missed the entire point of my argument because it appears that you have one preconceived notion of what 'heavy rail' is. The logic I'm trying to show is what is really the difference between LRT vehicles and HRT vehicles and how they are applied to get either the HEAVY Demand corridors or High capacity but Medium demand corridors. What if I take the LRV's and run them in a 4 or 5 car unit instead of 3 and operate them on a 3 minute headway instead of 5 minutes I would have heavy rail capacity all while using the same vehicle so that in case there are breakdowns I could utilize a larger area of existing LRV maintenance yards and shops to work from to fix and replace vehicles. I never suggested or even implied that no corridors need heavy rail. What I'm trying to do is think outside the box to show that maybe it isn't HRT vehicle technology that will make the difference but the infrastructure of Heavier Rail passenger capacity that is needed.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 8, 2011 17:09:24 GMT -8
What I'm trying to do is think outside the box to show that maybe it isn't HRT vehicle technology that will make the difference but the infrastructure of Heavier Rail passenger capacity that is needed. As far as capacity goes, Vermont south of Wilshire could be just as well served by LRT with 4 car trains, as long as there is not a problem with running a train every 2 or 3 minutes with at-grade crossings The reason for using HRT is really only to tie in with the existing subway to prevent a forced transfer at Wilshire/Western, which will add 5 to 15 minutes to half of trips (as currently happens when you need to transfer from the Blue Line to the Red Line). 6 car HRT trains (as used on the exisiting subway) would have a little more capacity than 4 car LRT trains, which would save a little on operating costs at rush hour, if demand is high. LRT trains could be made 6 cars in theory, but that might block cross streets when the trains stop at stations, if the line is at-grade south of Gage. (HRT train cars are also a little bit cheaper, but is a minor point) Basically, I think Vermont is just about the only place in LA that justifies a new HRT line (instead of LRT), along with a possible Red Line extension down Whittier, due to the advantage of continuing a current line rather than making a new forced connection. Everywhere else light rail will end up cheaper and more effective due to the ability to cross at-grade, and the large existing and planned number of LRT lines and miles.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 8, 2011 18:14:18 GMT -8
From what I have heard (on this forum from others hat know more than I do) it will not be possible to directly connect heavy rail, but I guess Metro and engineers will determine that in the future. Would it not be possible, if it was light rail, to connect the vermont line line directly to the Green line? Probably not since it is in the middle of a freeway.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 8, 2011 20:44:59 GMT -8
Since there is and old railroad right-of-way 2.5 miles south of USC, Vermont corridor should be light-rail, considering the fact that there will not be a direct connection to the Red Line anyway. (It wouldn't be preferable to send the Red Line trains to the south instead of Downtown.)
So, a 5.5-mile underground LRT segment to Gage Ave, and a 20-mile above-ground LRT segment to San Pedro, totaling 25 miles would be reasonable.
Don't worry about capacity. It's much better to build two lines instead of one line with twice the capacity.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 9, 2011 5:02:05 GMT -8
Any site that just blanketly claims Vermont corridor has 100,000 bus boardings..I cannot trust. Sorry, but I can believe that Wilshire is 80,000 - 100,000 a weekday (what I've heard from Metro), but I don't see that amount on Vermont. Vermont has about 50,000-55,000 boardings on 204 and 754. On Scribd, there's the MTAGossip account which has Metro's ridership figures.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 9, 2011 6:56:07 GMT -8
Any site that just blanketly claims Vermont corridor has 100,000 bus boardings..I cannot trust. Sorry, but I can believe that Wilshire is 80,000 - 100,000 a weekday (what I've heard from Metro), but I don't see that amount on Vermont. Vermont has about 50,000-55,000 boardings on 204 and 754. On Scribd, there's the MTAGossip account which has Metro's ridership figures. That makes more sense. Saying 100,000 is significantly overstating Vermont, when in reality, it's not busier than Wilshire is the DENSEST corridor in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 9, 2011 9:13:32 GMT -8
Vermont has about 50,000-55,000 boardings on 204 and 754. On Scribd, there's the MTAGossip account which has Metro's ridership figures. That makes more sense. Saying 100,000 is significantly overstating Vermont, when in reality, it's not busier than Wilshire is the DENSEST corridor in Los Angeles. Western is the third busiest line. Somewhere close to 50k I believe. Since Western is just about a mile to the West of Vermont, that is probably where the blogger is getting 100k figure for the corridor. A high speed line like this would attract many of those people as well vs. a very slow bus ride on Western.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 9, 2011 9:25:11 GMT -8
I'm leaning to the light-rail option as it will be less expensive and therefore allow the line to be built sooner and possibly extend farther south than the Green Line. I think that would create more mobility options even if it requires a transfer at Vermont/Wilshire.
For people who know the southern part of this corridor better than I do, would extending this south to San Pedro be a viable long-term option?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 9, 2011 13:24:52 GMT -8
I'm leaning to the light-rail option as it will be less expensive and therefore allow the line to be built sooner and possibly extend farther south than the Green Line. I think that would create more mobility options even if it requires a transfer at Vermont/Wilshire. For people who know the southern part of this corridor better than I do, would extending this south to San Pedro be a viable long-term option? Yes and No. Yes, because of how San Pedro is situated and formed it is essentially landlocked by the Oil Wells to the North, Rolling Hills/Palos Verdes to the West, the Port to the East and the Ocean to the South. No, because there's not enough activity and density to ensure that people who live in San Pedro will leave to head north and folks who need to work in San Pedro can come south. San Pedro would have to turn into another Downtown Long Beach or Downtown Santa Monica to make ridership for a heavy rail line pan out. Even with LRT it would be a bit of a stretch. Basically, I think Vermont is just about the only place in LA that justifies a new HRT line (instead of LRT), along with a possible Red Line extension down Whittier, due to the advantage of continuing a current line rather than making a new forced connection. Everywhere else light rail will end up cheaper and more effective due to the ability to cross at-grade, and the large existing and planned number of LRT lines and miles. Let me ask the advocates of eliminating this "forced" connection at Wilshire/Vermont an importatnt question. Do you think many patrons on Vermont buses make the transfer (to the Red Line or stay on the bus) now to continue NORTH on Vermont rather than continue WEST on Wilshire? I think the answer is that the bulk of the Vermont corridor patrons will be transfering to the Wilshire Corridor just as they do now to transfering from the 720 buses. What if this 6 car LRT were to have a grade seperated infrastructure like the 6 car HRT, what would we have now Light Rail or Heavy Rail? BTW HRT vehicles are about the same cost as LRT.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Feb 9, 2011 13:37:28 GMT -8
If it's unable to go all the way to San Pedro - would having it terminate at the Artesia Transit Center work instead?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 9, 2011 14:42:24 GMT -8
When all these lines were already running, they were going all the way down to the beach. When they were planned to be converted to HRT in 1925, they were still planned to go to the beach.
The line should definitely reach heavily populated areas of Carson and Lomita and make it to San Pedro to turn it into a Santa-Monica-like place in the future. TODs appearing can make a big difference when the lines are built. Remember that Los Angeles was built around the Pacific Electric light-rail lines.
Since this line would be mostly above ground, I'm inclined toward LRT than HRT for compatibility purposes. 4-car LRT trains can easily be run but I don't think 5- or 6-car LRT trains are possible with most existing equipment, not to say that new equipment can't be purchased. But I think they would like to keep the number of cars at 3 for compatibility purposes, as all existing lines use 3.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 9, 2011 17:08:13 GMT -8
Since there is and old railroad right-of-way 2.5 miles south of USC, Vermont corridor should be light-rail, considering the fact that there will not be a direct connection to the Red Line anyway. (It wouldn't be preferable to send the Red Line trains to the south instead of Downtown.) I don't understand what the Harbor Subdivison has to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 9, 2011 19:04:55 GMT -8
Since there is and old railroad right-of-way 2.5 miles south of USC, Vermont corridor should be light-rail, considering the fact that there will not be a direct connection to the Red Line anyway. (It wouldn't be preferable to send the Red Line trains to the south instead of Downtown.) I don't understand what the Harbor Subdivison has to do with it. Oh, I wasn't referring to the Harbor Subdivision but to the vast median of Vermont Avenue south of Gauge Ave.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 9, 2011 19:42:00 GMT -8
If it the Vermont corridor was to not connect with the Red Line, then maybe Light Rail would be a better option.
However, based on what i've heard so far from everyone, it sounds like it's not a matter of whether it's possible to either a)add on to the station, or b)build a nearby station with a connection to the Red Line, just north of the Wilshire/Vermont station. After all, the writer of that article says it might be, especially if the latter alternative is taken. It's just a matter of how much disruption this would cause to service. 2-3 years of construction actually seems shorter than I thought.
Nobody commented on something I said earlier, so here it is:
While the station is rebuilt, why not have special articulated buses run between each subway station on the Purple and Red lines, and avoid all other regular bus stops along the routes? Or do we already have that? If so, have the buses run much more frequently. This way, we can keep most subway riders during the 2-3 years of construction.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 9, 2011 21:29:25 GMT -8
Whether a rail connection is made on the north or northwest side of the station, or if it is made on the south or southeast side.... Think about it.... Two cylinder type tunnels are stacked one over the other. Earth separates them. Try to imagine the construction steps that would be necessary to build in new junctions. One over the other.
I highly doubt service could continue through much of whatever would be needed. None at all. For a long time. Years. That is not realistic to expect from riders or elected officials. If this is not realistic, it is not constructible.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 9, 2011 22:04:57 GMT -8
I have an idea: How about we never f**kin build this kind of a station again? It's a pain in the ass, and it just demonstrates that whoever designed it , and didn't think about possible future extensions. I highly doubt service could continue through much of whatever would be needed. None at all. For a long time. Years. That is not realistic to expect from riders or elected officials. If this is not realistic, it is not constructible. I'm sorry, but 2-3 years does NOT seem unrealistic, especially if there were buses that stopped at only subway stations frequently. If it gets people where they need to go, then there shouldn't be a problem keeping those subway riders for 2-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 10, 2011 6:20:54 GMT -8
I don't think it is the station that is the problem, it is the tunnels and ability to insert a junction while service is running.
|
|
|
Post by soundguise on Feb 10, 2011 6:32:05 GMT -8
Just as a matter of perspective. There are major projects that are done above below and next to active subways and other critical underground services. Is it really hard to do this without disrupting service? Absolutely. Can it be done without disrupting service for more than a couple months as the tie in procedure happens? Probably. Just look at the new bay bridge. They did the work and spent the money to make sure that the amount of time is had to be closed was minimal.
Will it be cheap or easy to build? I highly doubt it. Does that mean we can't or shouldn't build it? If that were the case then all of western civilization would never have moved past caves and huts (ok that may be a little extreme but hopefully you can see where I am coming from).
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 10, 2011 6:34:50 GMT -8
There will be a transfer at Vermont/Wilshire, I do not see a way around it. Maybe the line could make a connection elsewhere, as suggested on this board, at Westlake/MacArthur or Santa Monica/Vermont. I still see these as unlikely, a transfer is unavoidable for both the red and the green lines. I would want the line, if built, to go as far south as possible beyond the green line - and built as light rail. Anyhow, these are my opinions.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 10, 2011 10:49:34 GMT -8
Several people have questioned the utilityof running trains thru from the Red Line (North Hollywood/Hollywood) to South LA on Vermont.
There are 2 big benefits of building a direct connection and a new pair of tracks and platforms at the station.
1) With a new center platform, northbound trains from South LA, and Westbound trains from Downtown could meet at Wilshire/Vermont at the same time, open their doors, and let people transfer trains. This would save 10 minutes on average , compared to a transfer from a new light rail station at the street corner (5 minutes to walk up and down stairs and over to the subway station, 1 to 8 minutes to wait for the next train) even with trains running every 8 minutes. With trains every 12 or every 20 minutes (such as evenings) it would save 15 minutes or more on an average transfer.
2) Passengers could get between South LA and Hollywood/North Hollywood without changing seats. This also saves 10 or more minutes on average.
Consider that building a new light rail subway would save 10 minutes for trips from USC or Expo Park to Wilshire/Vermont, compared to the current 16 minute trip on the 754 rapid bus. Bus-only lanes could get that trip down to 12 minutes with minimal investment, so the connection at Vermont is just as important as the entire 3 mile subway, as far as improving mobility for transit riders.
Getting the connection done right at Wilshire/Vermont is just as important as building the subway at all. Without the connection, bus-only lanes on Vermont (which would allow people to continue north to Hollywood, at least) would be almost as good as the subway.
Consider that the Orange Line takes 20 minutes to go 5.5 miles from Sepulveda to North Hollywood (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=34.180708,-118.468881&daddr=34.168430,+-118.378151&hl=en&geocode=&mra=dme&mrcr=0&mrsp=0&sz=15&dirflg=r&ttype=dep&date=02%2F10%2F11&time=10:40am&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=def&sll=34.177122,-118.461585&sspn=0.01548,0.02708&ie=UTF8&z=15&start=0), the same distance as the potential subway from Wilshire to Gage (the end of the proposed subway portion). A subway would average at most 35 mph, or about 10 minutes. Again, the entire mobility improvement of subway versus bus rapid transit (or surface light rail) is equal to the mobility improvement of a cross-platform connection at Wilshire/Vermont.
I don't see the point in spending 2.0 billion on 5.5 miles of subway down Vermont to save 10 minutes, and not spending 0.5 billion to rebuild Wilshire/Vermont station, for the same time savings and network reliability improvement!
|
|