|
Post by masonite on Mar 7, 2017 17:36:06 GMT -8
Santa Monica also has 250,000 people working in it every day plus tourists. I agree that Wilshire would need some upzoning around the proposed 2 midtown subway stations to make this really viable (Downtown already has plenty of density for a station). Either that or they just should proceed with a station at Bundy in West LA (which already has plenty of density) and then one at 15th/16th at UCLA Santa Monica Hospital with St. Johns just a few blocks from there as well. You don't need too much more building there as there is already pretty decent density there now.
The Santa Monica stations performed much better than the West Hollywood Pink Line stations as far as performance in the planning work.
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Mar 8, 2017 10:45:56 GMT -8
ccl: I won't argue with your statements regarding racial and wealth inequities, but I will argue with your final point: "When the sepulveda line opens expo won't have the capacity to handle the transfer loads". IMHO that statement wouldn't be true unless a ton of the SF Valley to DTLA commuters switched from the Orange-to-Red Line connection to the Sepulveda-to-Expo connection. That wouldn't make sense because the Red Line is so much faster and more direct than the Sepulveda-to-Expo combination. If you're referring to transit demand on the west end of the Expo Line, I'll note that there is plenty of latent capacity west of Sepulveda (Metro ridership counts show that Expo loads west of Sepulveda are less than 60 percent of Expo loads east of Culver City) and this capacity will soon increase by 50 percent as train lengths are expanded to three-car trains.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 8, 2017 11:34:02 GMT -8
Why is Santa Monica too good for an elevated subway alignment to the beach again? This affluent beach town of 92,000 has flat population growth rate, population density is under 11,000/sq mile, the lowest in the Wilshire corridor after Beverly Hills, and is affectively stymied from increasing housing stock or density by its older, conservative citizens. Also, Wilshire Blvd in the City of Santa Monica is lined by low density, single purpose, low rise commercial buildings—who's worried about privacy or NIMBYs? I know New York City analogs get thrown around a lot, and yes, Santa Monica is definitely not it, Brooklyn with it's healthy density of over 35,000/sq mile has an elevated D/F train on its dozen mile approach to Coney Island/Stillwell. As a local comparison, West Hollywood makes a better case for underground considering the city's grade changes (if there were to be a station(s) on the Sunset Strip), sports a higher density at more than 18,000/ sq mile, the city has no current Metro Rail service and would affectively expand the network in a new direction, etc. So again, why is Santa Monica so special to differ on rational costs that a subway extension is to be underground or nothing at all? I believe evidence shows Metro should present Santa Monica with an elevated alignment to 3rd Street on the cheap, or they get nothing else. Downtown Santa Monica, just Downtown weekday population (with workers) eclipses 90K and the weekends are over 120K. This does not include anything else in the Wilshire corridor east of 7th St. However, any plans to extend into SM must be contingent on a pro density mandate and get rid of the slow growth mentality. ktla.com/2017/01/06/santa-monica-has-nations-highest-rent-prices-report-says/"Just" cut and cover Wilshire and be done with it. On aesthetics alone, SM would never approve an elevated track.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 8, 2017 11:47:53 GMT -8
Santa Monica also has 250,000 people working in it every day plus tourists. I agree that Wilshire would need some upzoning around the proposed 2 midtown subway stations to make this really viable (Downtown already has plenty of density for a station). Either that or they just should proceed with a station at Bundy in West LA (which already has plenty of density) and then one at 15th/16th at UCLA Santa Monica Hospital with St. Johns just a few blocks from there as well. You don't need too much more building there as there is already pretty decent density there now. The Santa Monica stations performed much better than the West Hollywood Pink Line stations as far as performance in the planning work. Santa Monica does NOT have a quarter million employees working there, by City of Santa Monica's 2014 estimate they have about 83,000 jobs. The vast majority of the "Silicon Beach" jobs alluded to inside City of Santa Monica are located south of Expo Line, south of I-10, some of them walkable from Expo Line—Wilshire Blvd in Santa Monica city limits is a 4 to 8 block walk north. Also, the top employer in Santa Monica is the City of Santa Monica which comes in at just over 2,500 employees. Exporider makes a good point that existing ridership on Expo with 6-minute headways and 2-car trains drops off sharply beyond Sepulveda station in West LA. Downtown SM is a weekend regional destination, tourists are a factor but cities don't expressly build infrastructure for tourists they build it to augment general mobility for residents and to move 9-5 workers to CBDs. I think the last estimate shows Downtown Santa Monica station seeing just under 5,000 riders per weekday, which is healthy—there is a lot of excess capacity. I'm still finding it hard to take $4-5B from the rest of LA County and the Feds to build an underground extension to an affluent community that's not growth-minded, density minded, and already is host to three at-grade light rail stations less than 5 blocks away—Manhattan gets two rapid transit lines within blocks of each other, so does downtown LA, Santa Monica does not convince me with evidence or existing/proposed city policy that this is justifiable. Downtown Santa Monica, just Downtown weekday population (with workers) eclipses 90K and the weekends are over 120K. This does not include anything else in the Wilshire corridor east of 7th St. The owner of Westwood's Village Square estimates Westwood to have a daytime population just shy of 138,000 with a census declared density of about 14,000/sq mile, higher than Santa Monica on both counts while still lower than downtown LA Financial District. UCLA alone employs 44,000.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 8, 2017 12:53:07 GMT -8
You'd have to at least put the terminal station underground - I happen to be one of those that think this should connect directly to the Expo Downtown Santa Monica station (along with the future Lincoln Line - making the station pretty much the the beaches' '7th Street/Metro Center').
There's almost no way the city would approve an elevated alignment. Years ago, Metro proposed a fully elevated alignment down Olympic to the beach for Expo in Santa Monica and the city rejected it. This was mostly because they felt an at-grade train would "fit" better within the framework of their downtown - something I do not entirely disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 8, 2017 16:03:48 GMT -8
Santa Monica also has 250,000 people working in it every day plus tourists. I agree that Wilshire would need some upzoning around the proposed 2 midtown subway stations to make this really viable (Downtown already has plenty of density for a station). Either that or they just should proceed with a station at Bundy in West LA (which already has plenty of density) and then one at 15th/16th at UCLA Santa Monica Hospital with St. Johns just a few blocks from there as well. You don't need too much more building there as there is already pretty decent density there now. The Santa Monica stations performed much better than the West Hollywood Pink Line stations as far as performance in the planning work. Santa Monica does NOT have a quarter million employees working there, by City of Santa Monica's 2014 estimate they have about 83,000 jobs. The vast majority of the "Silicon Beach" jobs alluded to inside City of Santa Monica are located south of Expo Line, south of I-10, some of them walkable from Expo Line—Wilshire Blvd in Santa Monica city limits is a 4 to 8 block walk north. Also, the top employer in Santa Monica is the City of Santa Monica which comes in at just over 2,500 employees. Exporider makes a good point that existing ridership on Expo with 6-minute headways and 2-car trains drops off sharply beyond Sepulveda station in West LA. Downtown SM is a weekend regional destination, tourists are a factor but cities don't expressly build infrastructure for tourists they build it to augment general mobility for residents and to move 9-5 workers to CBDs. I think the last estimate shows Downtown Santa Monica station seeing just under 5,000 riders per weekday, which is healthy—there is a lot of excess capacity. I'm still finding it hard to take $4-5B from the rest of LA County and the Feds to build an underground extension to an affluent community that's not growth-minded, density minded, and already is host to three at-grade light rail stations less than 5 blocks away—Manhattan gets two rapid transit lines within blocks of each other, so does downtown LA, Santa Monica does not convince me with evidence or existing/proposed city policy that this is justifiable. Downtown Santa Monica, just Downtown weekday population (with workers) eclipses 90K and the weekends are over 120K. This does not include anything else in the Wilshire corridor east of 7th St. The owner of Westwood's Village Square estimates Westwood to have a daytime population just shy of 138,000 with a census declared density of about 14,000/sq mile, higher than Santa Monica on both counts while still lower than downtown LA Financial District. UCLA alone employs 44,000.You're right it is not 250k workers, but rather a day time population of 250,000, which is where I got mixed up. While true that Westwood has many workers (more than Downtown San Diego in fact), you can't discount the fact that it is practically on SM's eastern border and contributes to the extreme traffic that you have in SM, especially from 2-8 p.m. You guys must not ride the same Expo Line I ride. When I get on at Bundy during weekdays/nights, I often have to stand until Culver City. The ridership stats bear this out as well as Expo has soared to over 55k, while the other lines are floundering. Those additional 25k people over Phase 1 are not all getting off at Palms or Rancho Park. In fact, there is growing worry that Expo may be over capacity once Crenshaw and the Regional Connector open, especially if Expo can be brought down to its original 45 minute estimated running time. As of February, Expo has now passed the Blue Line for most passengers per mile. There is a lot more that goes into transit ridership than how many people live in a City. How difficult and expensive is parking, how bad is traffic and how fast could the same trip be done by auto, is it pleasant to walk near the stations, are there good bike lanes and bike share, how good are local busses. SM scores much higher than pretty much the rest of SoCal in all those categories except one or two exceptions. That is part of the why you see the SM subway stations score so much higher than the Pink Line WeHo stations and why Expo has been blowing past expectations while the other lines struggle of late. I don't think going all the way to DTSM is a no-brainer but it does deserve a hard look, especially once the Connector opens.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 8, 2017 17:30:12 GMT -8
I don't buy the reasoning that the Expo Line needs a bypass subway to Santa Monica due to overwhelming demand argument. Here's why, the Expo Line should be good for carrying up to 200,000 even though it carries little more than a quarter of that today, just like the Blue Line could carry 200,000 if it hadn't already peaked at 90,000, or the Red Line was originally projected to carry 220,000 to North Hollywood and certainly could carry more but doesn't and that's through some of the densest communities in the state. There's a plethora of things that can be done to make these lines carry more passengers per hour (short of spending $3B) like removing seats for more standees for example, but that's not necessary because the capacity has not come close to being exceeded even on days when NBA, NFL, and concerts are programmed together on the same day in the region or even when we get record ridership for the largest day of protest in a generation. In fact the only line that comes close to be overburdened is the Orange Line, and that occurs for 2 hours every morning according to recent statistics. I think Crenshaw and Sepulveda lines will be robust with riders (despite what many on our forum forecast for Crenshaw) but I do not think they will push Expo to a theoretical 200,000 necessitating a bypass unless something unforeseen happens to the state of the automobile in Los Angeles. As for Expo Line outperforming Blue Line on a per-mile basis, congratulations Expo beat a light rail line that has falling ridership because its plagued with delays and never got up-zoned for development beyond light industrial use, factories, and junk yards. The ridership mostly starts dropping off on weekdays around Sepulveda not Westwood, which is the lowest performing station by the way, this is by Metro's own station by station ridership analysis of the line. I'll find the link/graphic later. I do ride Expo periodically during rush hours and its crowdedness is an unreliable indicator as the line vary train by train because of the frequent delays on the route which sees trains show up with sometimes wildly variant headways with periodic three-car trains thrown in to further complicate an eyeball assessment. Walkability definitely is a factor, as is local bus connections (how many people make bus connections in Santa Monica?), as are amenities like bike sharing and bike lanes but the fact remains that the city is anti-growth, anti-density, and is a suburban beach town whose population has been flat for decades, no matter how clean it is or how many bike lanes they install. It's not the solution to the housing crisis as its status as the most expensive city in the country attests, it's Silicon Beach jobs are within walking distance to the existing Expo Line, and it should be known if anyone's rode Metro Rail anywhere the system thrives despite walkability not necessarily because of it (ahem, Blue Line and Orange Line). Still don't understand why Santa Monica can't settle for elevated subway over expensive underground stations when the usual planning qualifiers don't justify more than light rail when they refuse to up-zone downtown Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 9, 2017 1:18:49 GMT -8
I don't buy the reasoning that the Expo Line needs a bypass subway to Santa Monica due to overwhelming demand argument. Here's why, the Expo Line should be good for carrying up to 200,000 even though it carries little more than a quarter of that today, just like the Blue Line could carry 200,000 if it hadn't already peaked at 90,000, or the Red Line was originally projected to carry 220,000 to North Hollywood and certainly could carry more but doesn't and that's through some of the densest communities in the state. There's a plethora of things that can be done to make these lines carry more passengers per hour (short of spending $3B) like removing seats for more standees for example, but that's not necessary because the capacity has not come close to being exceeded even on days when NBA, NFL, and concerts are programmed together on the same day in the region or even when we get record ridership for the largest day of protest in a generation. In fact the only line that comes close to be overburdened is the Orange Line, and that occurs for 2 hours every morning according to recent statistics. I think Crenshaw and Sepulveda lines will be robust with riders (despite what many on our forum forecast for Crenshaw) but I do not think they will push Expo to a theoretical 200,000 necessitating a bypass unless something unforeseen happens to the state of the automobile in Los Angeles. As for Expo Line outperforming Blue Line on a per-mile basis, congratulations Expo beat a light rail line that has falling ridership because its plagued with delays and never got up-zoned for development beyond light industrial use, factories, and junk yards. The ridership mostly starts dropping off on weekdays around Sepulveda not Westwood, which is the lowest performing station by the way, this is by Metro's own station by station ridership analysis of the line. I'll find the link/graphic later. I do ride Expo periodically during rush hours and its crowdedness is an unreliable indicator as the line vary train by train because of the frequent delays on the route which sees trains show up with sometimes wildly variant headways with periodic three-car trains thrown in to further complicate an eyeball assessment. Walkability definitely is a factor, as is local bus connections (how many people make bus connections in Santa Monica?), as are amenities like bike sharing and bike lanes but the fact remains that the city is anti-growth, anti-density, and is a suburban beach town whose population has been flat for decades, no matter how clean it is or how many bike lanes they install. It's not the solution to the housing crisis as its status as the most expensive city in the country attests, it's Silicon Beach jobs are within walking distance to the existing Expo Line, and it should be known if anyone's rode Metro Rail anywhere the system thrives despite walkability not necessarily because of it (ahem, Blue Line and Orange Line). Still don't understand why Santa Monica can't settle for elevated subway over expensive underground stations when the usual planning qualifiers don't justify more than light rail when they refuse to up-zone downtown Santa Monica. You make a ton of wrong assumptions. Let's start with your link to the LA Times article on the Women's Day March, which says the system was overloaded and over capacity in contrast to your assertion that the system had plenty of capacity. Not sure why would quote an article that contradicts yourself? In fact, many people waited for an hour or more at some Expo stations and couldn't board train after train and ended taking uber or driving. For Ram games, I can assure you Expo has been over capacity. There were waits of up to two hours and a lot of people gave up and started driving after that. I've been to games where we waited up to an hour.. I suppose you think a line is not at capacity if someone who is supposed to be at work at 8:00 has to wait a few hours for room on a train and shows up at 10:00 and then does the same thing on the way home. For the rest of us that is unacceptable. When Expo had barely over 40k riders it was crush loaded much of the day with people turned away from trains when service was 2 car trains every 12 minutes. 3 car trains every 6 minutes is only 3 times that level, which means we couldn't even get to 130,000. Ripping out all the seats is not realistic or even legal as it would violate the ADA and civil rights for the elderly. 200k is absurd. No way it could ever get near that level unless it was packed evenly from 5:00 a.m to midnight or every person rode for no more than 2-3 stations. Most people in SM live in old rent controlled apartments and while the median income is higher than the LA County average, it is not outlandishly so. The BBB has been a successful bus system for roughly a century. It is much more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper than the run down, filthy, union run Metro bus system that people are abandoning in droves. Overall, it is undeniable that Expo is outperforming every other light rail line in LA, even though it has been open in full less than a year and has had major operational problems. The Blue Line serves a poorer demographic as well as the two major downtown areas of LA County at a faster speed than Expo and still can't get to Expo's ridership per mile. A subway with stations at Bundy, 16th, and DTSM would be doable as those areas already have the density to support strong ridership as was previously studied. SM would have a stronger argument if they allowed some taller buildings near the stations as is certainly possible. SM has been against some development but certainly not all, but that is because the traffic has become ridiculous and the city is already more dense than almost any other in LA County. A subway here would have to be weighed against other projects not in Measure M, but I haven't seen many that would compare. There are certainly others in Measure M that are solid, but there are also several that are pretty bad with horrible ridership projections unlike this Phase 4 of the Purple Line.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 9, 2017 11:40:48 GMT -8
Regarding the Women's March, if Metro was expecting to carrying 600,000 or 1,000,000 riders by rail everyday they wouldn't be steadily building light rail in this County would they?
Further more, sir you're making additional assumptions, without any attempts to cite anything at all. The fondness for this affluent anti-growth suburban beach town that already hosts an existing rapid transit line defies logic. Allow me to retreat a step back to my original point as for why Santa Monica is too good for an elevated subway extension given its low density suburban development pattern? I'm not convinced that taking $3B+ away from parts of the County with no rail, or even sufficient bus service (no matter how much you hate Metro buses) for that matter, is in any way a reason to give into preserving Santa Monica's ("racist," according to CulverCityLocke) aesthetics.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 9, 2017 13:16:18 GMT -8
Even with all the data provided, there will never be elevated rail in Santa Monica. The people will fight it. It'll make Beverly Hills' opposition look (even more?) laughable by comparison.
The city simply *doesn't want it.* Again, they were offered an elevated (and more costly) option by Metro(!) for Expo. It would've meant faster trains and no impact to traffic.
And the city STILL rejected it.
While we'd all love to save a few billion on this project, I just don't see it happening. Call it racism, call it whatever - the present citizens of Santa Monica have a very specific aesthetic for their city that does not include elevated rail.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 9, 2017 15:11:02 GMT -8
UrbanizeLA (a great website!) takes up the case for extending Purple line to the sea again. urbanize.la/post/does-la-need-santa-monica-purple-line-extensionKey points if you can't be bother to read the whole thing: 1. Funding gap turns out to be much smaller than anticipated back when Metro decided to abandon the segment 2. Expo line will be beyond capacity between Sepulveda and Downtown SM once the Sepulveda Pass rail line opens 3. Ridership of the segment may have been under estimated because it didn't fully consider bus replacement and induced ridership on Santa Monica blvd (Downtown SM to Century City, and Downtown SM to Westwood) - i.e. the modeling may have been too Wilshire blvd centric. 4. EIR is done! All we need to do is ask for money. Per this link metro was 1.8 billion short of funds to build out phase 4 . The federal grants they've gotten so far have come in about 900 million over expectation, meaning the shortfall is now only 900 million. I think measure m and maybe some local return money could make this a very financeable number for metro to achieve. Not to mention the possibility a phase four could also get federal funding.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 9, 2017 15:16:19 GMT -8
$1.8 billion seems awfully cheap for an extension that will require at least three (preferably four) underground stations.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 9, 2017 17:10:30 GMT -8
I don't think 1.8 was he cost it was the shortfall from measure r funds
the article does say the estimate was 680 million per mile for phase four which was the cheapest per mile cost of the four phases. It's 4.9 miles which equals 3.332 billion
If metro had 1.5 billion for phase four that leaves a shortfall of 1.8 billion. That 1.5 seems about right, Based on measure r which had subway to the sea as its centerpiece selling point, it would make sense r has some money for phase four.
If they have gotten 900 million more than they expected from the Feds, the shortfall for phase four is down to 900 million. At 900 million we should be able to find the money somewhere.
And it would be a shame to end the subway at nowhere (the VA) rather than a proper destination. And let us not forget that the Vietnam Veterans will be mostly gone by the 2030s when phase three opens, so the VA will be a literal ghost town (The three Bush wars had troop deployments orders of magnitude less than Vietnam).
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Mar 10, 2017 10:48:22 GMT -8
I don't buy the reasoning that the Expo Line needs a bypass subway to Santa Monica due to overwhelming demand argument. Here's why, the Expo Line should be good for carrying up to 200,000 even though it carries little more than a quarter of that today, just like the Blue Line could carry 200,000 if it hadn't already peaked at 90,000, or the Red Line was originally projected to carry 220,000 to North Hollywood and certainly could carry more but doesn't and that's through some of the densest communities in the state. There's a plethora of things that can be done to make these lines carry more passengers per hour (short of spending $3B) like removing seats for more standees for example, but that's not necessary because the capacity has not come close to being exceeded even on days when NBA, NFL, and concerts are programmed together on the same day in the region or even when we get record ridership for the largest day of protest in a generation. In fact the only line that comes close to be overburdened is the Orange Line, and that occurs for 2 hours every morning according to recent statistics. I think Crenshaw and Sepulveda lines will be robust with riders (despite what many on our forum forecast for Crenshaw) but I do not think they will push Expo to a theoretical 200,000 necessitating a bypass unless something unforeseen happens to the state of the automobile in Los Angeles. As for Expo Line outperforming Blue Line on a per-mile basis, congratulations Expo beat a light rail line that has falling ridership because its plagued with delays and never got up-zoned for development beyond light industrial use, factories, and junk yards. The ridership mostly starts dropping off on weekdays around Sepulveda not Westwood, which is the lowest performing station by the way, this is by Metro's own station by station ridership analysis of the line. I'll find the link/graphic later. I do ride Expo periodically during rush hours and its crowdedness is an unreliable indicator as the line vary train by train because of the frequent delays on the route which sees trains show up with sometimes wildly variant headways with periodic three-car trains thrown in to further complicate an eyeball assessment. Walkability definitely is a factor, as is local bus connections (how many people make bus connections in Santa Monica?), as are amenities like bike sharing and bike lanes but the fact remains that the city is anti-growth, anti-density, and is a suburban beach town whose population has been flat for decades, no matter how clean it is or how many bike lanes they install. It's not the solution to the housing crisis as its status as the most expensive city in the country attests, it's Silicon Beach jobs are within walking distance to the existing Expo Line, and it should be known if anyone's rode Metro Rail anywhere the system thrives despite walkability not necessarily because of it (ahem, Blue Line and Orange Line). Still don't understand why Santa Monica can't settle for elevated subway over expensive underground stations when the usual planning qualifiers don't justify more than light rail when they refuse to up-zone downtown Santa Monica. You make a ton of wrong assumptions. Let's start with your link to the LA Times article on the Women's Day March, which says the system was overloaded and over capacity in contrast to your assertion that the system had plenty of capacity. Not sure why would quote an article that contradicts yourself? In fact, many people waited for an hour or more at some Expo stations and couldn't board train after train and ended taking uber or driving. For Ram games, I can assure you Expo has been over capacity. There were waits of up to two hours and a lot of people gave up and started driving after that. I've been to games where we waited up to an hour.. I suppose you think a line is not at capacity if someone who is supposed to be at work at 8:00 has to wait a few hours for room on a train and shows up at 10:00 and then does the same thing on the way home. For the rest of us that is unacceptable. When Expo had barely over 40k riders it was crush loaded much of the day with people turned away from trains when service was 2 car trains every 12 minutes. 3 car trains every 6 minutes is only 3 times that level, which means we couldn't even get to 130,000. Ripping out all the seats is not realistic or even legal as it would violate the ADA and civil rights for the elderly. 200k is absurd. No way it could ever get near that level unless it was packed evenly from 5:00 a.m to midnight or every person rode for no more than 2-3 stations. Most people in SM live in old rent controlled apartments and while the median income is higher than the LA County average, it is not outlandishly so. The BBB has been a successful bus system for roughly a century. It is much more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper than the run down, filthy, union run Metro bus system that people are abandoning in droves. Overall, it is undeniable that Expo is outperforming every other light rail line in LA, even though it has been open in full less than a year and has had major operational problems. The Blue Line serves a poorer demographic as well as the two major downtown areas of LA County at a faster speed than Expo and still can't get to Expo's ridership per mile. A subway with stations at Bundy, 16th, and DTSM would be doable as those areas already have the density to support strong ridership as was previously studied. SM would have a stronger argument if they allowed some taller buildings near the stations as is certainly possible. SM has been against some development but certainly not all, but that is because the traffic has become ridiculous and the city is already more dense than almost any other in LA County. A subway here would have to be weighed against other projects not in Measure M, but I haven't seen many that would compare. There are certainly others in Measure M that are solid, but there are also several that are pretty bad with horrible ridership projections unlike this Phase 4 of the Purple Line. Masonite: Regarding Expo capacity you state that "200k is absurd. No way it could ever get near that level unless it was packed evenly from 5:00 a.m to midnight or every person rode for no more than 2-3 stations." I disagree. In fact, the Expo capacity could approach that level under current plans for future expansion. The current operating plan provides ~150 daily round trip trains, and each train has ~135 seats, so the total seating capacity is currently ~40,000. However, the average trip length on Expo is ~6 miles (or ~8 station), so assuming that each seat can be used twice on each trip, the actual seating capacity is ~80,000. Future expansion plans call for three-car peak period trains every 5 minutes, which represents an 80 percent increase over existing service levels, so the seating capacity will increase to ~144,000. When you add in the standing capacity, using a conservative factor of 1.4 passengers per seat, you can increase the total capacity to 200,000. I agree that my analysis requires the leap of faith that the ridership demand would have to be distributed throughout the day to match the available capacity. Given this constraint I would peg the realistic ridership capacity for Expo closer to the 150,000-160,000 range. Note that this is more than double the long-range ridership forecasts for Expo.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 10, 2017 11:53:53 GMT -8
You make a ton of wrong assumptions. Let's start with your link to the LA Times article on the Women's Day March, which says the system was overloaded and over capacity in contrast to your assertion that the system had plenty of capacity. Not sure why would quote an article that contradicts yourself? In fact, many people waited for an hour or more at some Expo stations and couldn't board train after train and ended taking uber or driving. For Ram games, I can assure you Expo has been over capacity. There were waits of up to two hours and a lot of people gave up and started driving after that. I've been to games where we waited up to an hour.. I suppose you think a line is not at capacity if someone who is supposed to be at work at 8:00 has to wait a few hours for room on a train and shows up at 10:00 and then does the same thing on the way home. For the rest of us that is unacceptable. When Expo had barely over 40k riders it was crush loaded much of the day with people turned away from trains when service was 2 car trains every 12 minutes. 3 car trains every 6 minutes is only 3 times that level, which means we couldn't even get to 130,000. Ripping out all the seats is not realistic or even legal as it would violate the ADA and civil rights for the elderly. 200k is absurd. No way it could ever get near that level unless it was packed evenly from 5:00 a.m to midnight or every person rode for no more than 2-3 stations. Most people in SM live in old rent controlled apartments and while the median income is higher than the LA County average, it is not outlandishly so. The BBB has been a successful bus system for roughly a century. It is much more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper than the run down, filthy, union run Metro bus system that people are abandoning in droves. Overall, it is undeniable that Expo is outperforming every other light rail line in LA, even though it has been open in full less than a year and has had major operational problems. The Blue Line serves a poorer demographic as well as the two major downtown areas of LA County at a faster speed than Expo and still can't get to Expo's ridership per mile. A subway with stations at Bundy, 16th, and DTSM would be doable as those areas already have the density to support strong ridership as was previously studied. SM would have a stronger argument if they allowed some taller buildings near the stations as is certainly possible. SM has been against some development but certainly not all, but that is because the traffic has become ridiculous and the city is already more dense than almost any other in LA County. A subway here would have to be weighed against other projects not in Measure M, but I haven't seen many that would compare. There are certainly others in Measure M that are solid, but there are also several that are pretty bad with horrible ridership projections unlike this Phase 4 of the Purple Line. Masonite: Regarding Expo capacity you state that "200k is absurd. No way it could ever get near that level unless it was packed evenly from 5:00 a.m to midnight or every person rode for no more than 2-3 stations." I disagree. In fact, the Expo capacity could approach that level under current plans for future expansion. The current operating plan provides ~150 daily round trip trains, and each train has ~135 seats, so the total seating capacity is currently ~40,000. However, the average trip length on Expo is ~6 miles (or ~8 station), so assuming that each seat can be used twice on each trip, the actual seating capacity is ~80,000. Future expansion plans call for three-car peak period trains every 5 minutes, which represents an 80 percent increase over existing service levels, so the seating capacity will increase to ~144,000. When you add in the standing capacity, using a conservative factor of 1.4 passengers per seat, you can increase the total capacity to 200,000. I agree that my analysis requires the leap of faith that the ridership demand would have to be distributed throughout the day to match the available capacity. Given this constraint I would peg the realistic ridership capacity for Expo closer to the 150,000-160,000 range. Note that this is more than double the long-range ridership forecasts for Expo. Okay, maybe some exaggeration there on my part, but the point remains. People don't use the line at the same levels at midnight vs. 7-9 a.m. and 4-7 p.m. If people are turned away from using the Line during normal working commute times, that means in my book the line is at capacity. If the line is that crowded at midnight that would mean there is a huge amount of unmet demand during most of the rest of the day, because people want to use the system mainly to go to work or school and most people don't work at midnight. Imagine a conversation where someone says they are moving to LA and want to take Expo to their job in SM. You tell them it is going to be difficult to get on the train during the morning and evening and very uncomfortable if they do get lucky and get on a train, but hey the train isn't that crowded at midnight if they want to use it then. I am sure that will go over well.
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Mar 10, 2017 12:43:37 GMT -8
Thanks M, I didn't know we were allowed to admit to hyperbole in this age of Trump. My over-riding point (in support of t4gm's original argument) is that current operating plans for future Expo expansion provide capacity that far exceeds the long-range ridership demand. Even if the ridership demand is 50 percent higher than the official long-range forecasts, we will only reach 100,000 daily riders, which can easily be served by five-minute three-car service (without spreading to demand into the nighttime hours). If you want to increase the transit demand to warrant a "subway to the sea" parallel to Expo, you will have to make yuuuge changes to the land use plans in the corridor. (Or implement congestion pricing, an equitable fuel tax, eliminate parking or parking subsidies, or other disincentives to driving.)
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 10, 2017 17:30:52 GMT -8
150 round trips per day over twenty hours of operation is 7.5 round trips per hour. At 135 seats per train that's only 1012 seats per hour.
However You have two peak periods on week days of three hours each with presumably a a train every five minutes or twelve trains per hour that's 1620 seats per hour or 4820 seats per peak period (each direction)
So you're only moving 9720 seats per day during peak periods.
If you figure standing room only on all 60 daily peak period trains with the additional people being evenly distributed across all trains over those three hours (big assumption!) you can multiply by 1.4 and get a daily combined peak period capacity of 13608 riders per direction.
A daily peak ridership of 27216 is extremely far away from your alleged 150,000 or 200,000 you're saying expo can handle.
There is also psychology to consider and it's inverse relationship to ridership. The more crowded a bus or train ride is the more people seek an alternative.
As crowding gets worse people become more motivated to stop riding.
Believe it or not someone standing for a forty minute train ride in crush loads is not a train person marveling at the popularity of trains, that person is instead calculating what it would take to not have to experience this miserable experience again. The more often you have the experience it the more motivated you get.
In other words lines running at capacity all the time is not nothing but good news, it has negative consequences to be considered as well.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 11, 2017 9:28:37 GMT -8
I suppose you think a line is not at capacity if someone who is supposed to be at work at 8:00 has to wait a few hours for room on a train and shows up at 10:00 and then does the same thing on the way home. For the rest of us that is unacceptable. For others coming from other cities where this is the norm, that is alleviated with other attractions to buy time or kill time nearby like at Cubs games at Wrigley Field afterwards folks are hitting up the bars to celebrate or commiserate, they are not hopping directly on the trains afterwards. I think a bigger factor is what is the acceptable normal for mobility. If folks are use to having a seat in their car, they will want a seat on the train and be able to move whenever they like, despite there are also delays and congestion in traffic that they will be sitting in the car. If passengers are use to the demands and crowding, they adapt. If people turned away shouldn't ridership on your account be decreasing rather than increasing? At double the frequency, there is plenty of capacity left. Heavy Rail trains have finite capacity limits too the longer they are extended, like going to Santa Monica. The key constraint is not just how it was built but how it operates. And who is using it in what areas. For Expo Line from USC to Downtown there is more demand there and then it drops off after USC and picks up again around Crenshaw, then again at Culver City and then again at either Westwood or Sepulevda and then Santa Monica College. Here the turnover is pretty short distance of the peak demands. In Vancouver they recently built a heavy rail Canada Line from the airport to Downtown and it is already reaching capacity limits within the first year. The other end of the spectrum with Light Rail, Calgary's C-Train system carries over 250K 325K riders a day in it's short mostly at grade/highway median rail system (a few elevated bridges and tunnels on the newer West Line leg) and they are coping with capacity surges through platform extensions and eliminating constraints where longer trains can't operate on the surface and new train interiors with more flexible standee space which doubles as ADA compliant areas and spaces for bikes. calgarymayor.ca/stories/new-mask-4-car-ctrains-start-runningThe beauty in some of this is that it clamors for more demand for transit service to grow the network. I would argue in some instances it would be more beneficial to extend platforms beyond the 3 cars to 4 cars and strategically look at ways of incrementally expanding that and find the constraints and eliminate them to make that occur. The ones that compare are in the same subregion, like the Sepulveda Pass Corridor and the Northern Extension of the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood. Which means it's competing within its own subregion to spread out the investments that LA County taxpayers are supporting. Other viable projects like the West Santa Ana Corridor, Vermont Corridor would have to compete with the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica outside of the Westside subregion
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 11, 2017 9:48:27 GMT -8
150 round trips per day over twenty hours of operation is 7.5 round trips per hour. At 135 seats per train that's only 1012 seats per hour. However You have two peak periods on week days of three hours each with presumably a a train every five minutes or twelve trains per hour that's 1620 seats per hour or 4820 seats per peak period (each direction) So you're only moving 9720 seats per day during peak periods. If you figure standing room only on all 60 daily peak period trains with the additional people being evenly distributed across all trains over those three hours (big assumption!) you can multiply by 1.4 and get a daily combined peak period capacity of 13608 riders per direction. A daily peak ridership of 27216 is extremely far away from your alleged 150,000 or 200,000 you're saying expo can handle. There is also psychology to consider and it's inverse relationship to ridership. The more crowded a bus or train ride is the more people seek an alternative. As crowding gets worse people become more motivated to stop riding. Believe it or not someone standing for a forty minute train ride in crush loads is not a train person marveling at the popularity of trains, that person is instead calculating what it would take to not have to experience this miserable experience again. The more often you have the experience it the more motivated you get. In other words lines running at capacity all the time is not nothing but good news, it has negative consequences to be considered as well. A key question is how long are the passengers travelling? And are your numbers assuming a two car train or three car train? (I think it is two which doesn't go to the commentators point about capacity and ridership because you want to go with the maximum design limits) Trip and travel length for this analysis matters also based on this assumption it also shows that the Expo Line is well utilized throughout the day not just at peak periods and with trip lengths that have short distance of peak bursts which sounds like there is a turnover of seats which is more important. I'm curious as to take a look at the 720 bus from Santa Monica to East LA, most of the trips end in Downtown LA and frequency is ever 2-3 minutes on a 60 foot bus that seats 56. Somehow that line carries close to 40K riders a day.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2017 10:32:35 GMT -8
I suppose you think a line is not at capacity if someone who is supposed to be at work at 8:00 has to wait a few hours for room on a train and shows up at 10:00 and then does the same thing on the way home. For the rest of us that is unacceptable. For others coming from other cities where this is the norm, that is alleviated with other attractions to buy time or kill time nearby like at Cubs games at Wrigley Field afterwards folks are hitting up the bars to celebrate or commiserate, they are not hopping directly on the trains afterwards. I think a bigger factor is what is the acceptable normal for mobility. If folks are use to having a seat in their car, they will want a seat on the train and be able to move whenever they like, despite there are also delays and congestion in traffic that they will be sitting in the car. If passengers are use to the demands and crowding, they adapt. If people turned away shouldn't ridership on your account be decreasing rather than increasing? At double the frequency, there is plenty of capacity left. Heavy Rail trains have finite capacity limits too the longer they are extended, like going to Santa Monica. The key constraint is not just how it was built but how it operates. And who is using it in what areas. For Expo Line from USC to Downtown there is more demand there and then it drops off after USC and picks up again around Crenshaw, then again at Culver City and then again at either Westwood or Sepulevda and then Santa Monica College. Here the turnover is pretty short distance of the peak demands. In Vancouver they recently built a heavy rail Canada Line from the airport to Downtown and it is already reaching capacity limits within the first year. The other end of the spectrum with Light Rail, Calgary's C-Train system carries over 250K 325K riders a day in it's short mostly at grade/highway median rail system (a few elevated bridges and tunnels on the newer West Line leg) and they are coping with capacity surges through platform extensions and eliminating constraints where longer trains can't operate on the surface and new train interiors with more flexible standee space which doubles as ADA compliant areas and spaces for bikes. calgarymayor.ca/stories/new-mask-4-car-ctrains-start-runningThe beauty in some of this is that it clamors for more demand for transit service to grow the network. I would argue in some instances it would be more beneficial to extend platforms beyond the 3 cars to 4 cars and strategically look at ways of incrementally expanding that and find the constraints and eliminate them to make that occur. The ones that compare are in the same subregion, like the Sepulveda Pass Corridor and the Northern Extension of the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood. Which means it's competing within its own subregion to spread out the investments that LA County taxpayers are supporting. Other viable projects like the West Santa Ana Corridor, Vermont Corridor would have to compete with the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica outside of the Westside subregion It may be normal to wait a couple hours after a Cub game to board a train, but not in every day normal weekday commuting, which is my point. Expo ridership can grow now because 3 car trains aren't being used yet, but once they are then that is it for Expo. Headways below 5-6 minutes will not be possible and some stations cannot be expanded to handle 4 car trains. Will Expo be able to handle the additional ridership from the Crenshaw and Sepulveda lines or will it be a bottleneck for the entire system. If it is the latter I think it makes sense to look into other options.
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Mar 11, 2017 10:59:38 GMT -8
JW: The numbers that CCL is using for his argument are derived from my analysis a couple days ago. This should provide some of the reference material that you're looking for: "The current operating plan provides ~150 daily round trip trains [100 trains during the 10 peak hours with 6-minute service, 35 trains during the 7 off-peak hours with 12-minute service, and 15 trains during the 5 evening hours with 20-minute service], and each [two-car] train has ~135 seats, so the total seating capacity is currently ~40,000. However, the average trip length on Expo is ~6 miles (or ~8 station), so assuming that each seat can be used twice on each trip, the actual seating capacity is ~80,000. Future expansion plans call for three-car peak period trains every 5 minutes, which represents an 80 percent increase over existing service levels, so the seating capacity will increase to ~144,000. When you add in the standing capacity, using a conservative factor of 1.4 passengers per seat, you can increase the total capacity to 200,000." Other observations: - Peak hour seats are currently ~1,350 per direction, and will increase to ~2,430 with the planned (and funded) service expansions. - Not only is "the Expo Line well utilized throughout the day" it is also utilized in both directions at the same time, unlike the Blue and Gold Lines. This balanced is very rare for an urban LRT, and greatly increases the productivity of the system. - Data for average trip lengths on Expo Phase 2 isn't currently available from Metro so I'm making an educated guess. Average trip lengths on the 8.5 mile Phase 1 Expo were ~4 miles, and average trip lengths on the longer Gold and Blue Lines are 6-7 miles. - The standing room factor of 1.4 is far from crush loads. A 1.4 factor assumes that there will be 6-7 passengers standing near each door, with sufficient room to move around the train. The crush loads that we were all subjected to during the first couple months of Expo Phase 2 often exceeded 2.0. (I know because I counted. On more than one occasion I counted more than 150 passengers on a single Expo Line train, for a factor of 2.2.) CCL: Your analysis doesn't account for the fact that most seats are used more than once on each trip, i.e. only ~10% of all riders on Expo travel all the way between DTLA and Santa Monica. The actual operational seated capacity for the six peak hours that you describe is 16,200 in each direction (135 seats per train times 10 trains per hour times 2 passengers per seat times 6 peak hours). Approximately half of all transit trips are completed during these 6 peak hours, so the total daily capacity on Expo is ~65,000, under current operating conditions. This is why, for the current ridership of 55,000 average weekday passengers, almost every rider can find a seat. This seated capacity will increase from ~65,000 to ~117,000 with the implementation of the planned and funded service improvements. [Note that my estimate of the total seated capacity is lower than in my previous analysis (144,000), because I'm accounting for the lower transit demand that is experienced during the off-peak periods.] When you apply the standing factor (1.4) the total capacity will be more than 160,000 weekday passengers, as my previous analysis estimated.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Mar 11, 2017 11:22:06 GMT -8
Not to be a wet blanket but regardless of its costs or merit, a purple line extension to the sea is not going to happen in our lifetimes. Politically, you are talking about giving a rich white enclave not one but two rail lines, including a true subway, before other areas with higher transit ridership and/or density even get a BRT.
If you want all of LA County to pay for this sort of thing, you are inherently going to have to address sub-area value arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 11, 2017 16:25:12 GMT -8
Not to be a wet blanket but regardless of its costs or merit, a purple line extension to the sea is not going to happen in our lifetimes. Politically, you are talking about giving a rich white enclave not one but two rail lines, including a true subway, before other areas with higher transit ridership and/or density even get a BRT. If you want all of LA County to pay for this sort of thing, you are inherently going to have to address sub-area value arguments. I mostly agree, but I don't think it's that dire. If it were, we would never be getting the full Gold Line Foothill extension to Claremont (different circumstances of course, but still with plenty of its own disadvantages/challenges in being made a reality). And despite what you point out, a Purple Line extension to the 4th/Colorado station regionally makes too much sense to not happen in our lifetimes. *Everyone* will realize what a failure of a terminus the VA is, if they won't have prior. The demand will only increase as Expo becomes burdened by higher ridership and overflow from future lines (Crenshaw and Sepulveda the most). Its major challenges are funding and how it should be built. I've made my thoughts on this clear, but as an addendum: I don't live in Santa Monica and even *I* think an 'el' on Wilshire wouldn't fit and would look ugly. Subway is the only way it's happening. Then you have the stations: I would prefer 4: Bundy, 26th, 14th, and 4th/Colorado. Realistically, it'll more likely be 3: Bundy, 20th, and 4th (either at Wilshire or Colorado, more likely the former). Given Santa Monica's reputation as a nexus of activity in L.A. County, it's not unrealistic that multiple lines would terminate there, serving different corridors as Expo, Wilshire, and Lincoln will.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2017 17:15:17 GMT -8
Not to be a wet blanket but regardless of its costs or merit, a purple line extension to the sea is not going to happen in our lifetimes. Politically, you are talking about giving a rich white enclave not one but two rail lines, including a true subway, before other areas with higher transit ridership and/or density even get a BRT. If you want all of LA County to pay for this sort of thing, you are inherently going to have to address sub-area value arguments. Some questionable stereotypes here. Santa Monica is less than 2/3 white and not much of an enclave when you have so many visitors and workers commuting in. With the daytime population my guess is that the pop is only about half white, not that any of that matters unless you think certain races of people should not have access to transit. SM is only being thought of wealthy in the last decade or so and that is largely due to growth of technology and Silicon Beach. With Snap going public, the LA tech scene may really be growing now. Seems like people would want more access to these jobs which tend to be much higher paying than those in the rest of the County. While Downtown has come into its own residentially and culturally it has not grown as a work center in 30 years as its high rises still struggle with huge vacancy. Not sure if there will ever be a subway extension here or a line up Lincoln from LAX, but if Hollywood can have two lines despite many people being anti growth there and not a major work center, then I don't think it automatically disqualifies SM from the same, especially if the demand is more than there.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 12, 2017 11:27:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 12, 2017 19:34:44 GMT -8
The image I made below is the consolidation of service I'd like to see of all the west side Metro lines.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 12, 2017 20:27:21 GMT -8
Would it be substantially more expensive to turn the purple line ninety degrees to get it to the expo station?
I imagine there'd be a lot more property rights involved in the turn as well as possibly the problem of having to take the TBM deeper than it would need to be on Wilshire in order to safely go beneath the building foundations the turn will take you underneath, I imagine the turning radius is such that the tbm would not have turned 90 degrees by the time it had traversed the north south distance between Wilshire and 4th. So you probably have to tunnel north after the 14th street station to get enough north south distance to complete the turn onto fourth, so additional property rights problems and expenses and opposition in tunneling north of Wilshire
and where would the extraction pit be for the TBM? I imagine you'd have to tunnel south of the ten freeway to find a suitably long extraction pit, perhaps you could extract the tbm on fourth in between Wilshire and Colorado (if the tbm has completed the turn and is completely under 4th), but I imagine the city of Santa Monica would hate having an extraction pit on that part of fourth.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 12, 2017 22:58:49 GMT -8
Did some googling to answer my question. It's 0.6 miles from the expo station to 4th/Wilshire or 3168 feet
The length of the gold line EE tbm about 350 feet and had a turning radius of 800 feet. Even if we were to assume a longer tbm and a longer turning radius, there still is plenty of room for the tbm to mine 1000 feet under 4th street before hitting a station box that is 1000 feet long.
I was under the mistaken impression that A tbm had more of a 2000 feet turning radius, not less than 1000 feet.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 13, 2017 20:40:43 GMT -8
[It may be normal to wait a couple hours after a Cub game to board a train, but not in every day normal weekday commuting, which is my point. Expo ridership can grow now because 3 car trains aren't being used yet, but once they are then that is it for Expo. Headways below 5-6 minutes will not be possible and some stations cannot be expanded to handle 4 car trains. Will Expo be able to handle the additional ridership from the Crenshaw and Sepulveda lines or will it be a bottleneck for the entire system. If it is the latter I think it makes sense to look into other options. What it the normal wait for folks in their cars as well? I mean a more active city will have commuters waiting just a little longer to avoid the traffic jams and headaches that come with them. And what are the other options? Building other corridors parallel to them? Sounds like a good way to build the network don't you think? Plus if the Expo and Blue Line has its corridor shared in a tunnel from USC to Downtown LA, that alone can bump the frequency to a train every 4 minutes As far as Sepulveda and Crenshaw Lines, the majority of those passengers will be transferring to the Purple Line for points in Century City, Beverly Hills and Mid Wilshire
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 13, 2017 20:44:02 GMT -8
JW: The numbers that CCL is using for his argument are derived from my analysis a couple days ago. This should provide some of the reference material that you're looking for: "The current operating plan provides ~150 daily round trip trains [100 trains during the 10 peak hours with 6-minute service, 35 trains during the 7 off-peak hours with 12-minute service, and 15 trains during the 5 evening hours with 20-minute service], and each [two-car] train has ~135 seats, so the total seating capacity is currently ~40,000. However, the average trip length on Expo is ~6 miles (or ~8 station), so assuming that each seat can be used twice on each trip, the actual seating capacity is ~80,000. Future expansion plans call for three-car peak period trains every 5 minutes, which represents an 80 percent increase over existing service levels, so the seating capacity will increase to ~144,000. When you add in the standing capacity, using a conservative factor of 1.4 passengers per seat, you can increase the total capacity to 200,000." Other observations: - Peak hour seats are currently ~1,350 per direction, and will increase to ~2,430 with the planned (and funded) service expansions. - Not only is "the Expo Line well utilized throughout the day" it is also utilized in both directions at the same time, unlike the Blue and Gold Lines. This balanced is very rare for an urban LRT, and greatly increases the productivity of the system.- Data for average trip lengths on Expo Phase 2 isn't currently available from Metro so I'm making an educated guess. Average trip lengths on the 8.5 mile Phase 1 Expo were ~4 miles, and average trip lengths on the longer Gold and Blue Lines are 6-7 miles.- The standing room factor of 1.4 is far from crush loads. A 1.4 factor assumes that there will be 6-7 passengers standing near each door, with sufficient room to move around the train. The crush loads that we were all subjected to during the first couple months of Expo Phase 2 often exceeded 2.0. (I know because I counted. On more than one occasion I counted more than 150 passengers on a single Expo Line train, for a factor of 2.2.) CCL: Your analysis doesn't account for the fact that most seats are used more than once on each trip, i.e. only ~10% of all riders on Expo travel all the way between DTLA and Santa Monica. The actual operational seated capacity for the six peak hours that you describe is 16,200 in each direction (135 seats per train times 10 trains per hour times 2 passengers per seat times 6 peak hours). Approximately half of all transit trips are completed during these 6 peak hours, so the total daily capacity on Expo is ~65,000, under current operating conditions. This is why, for the current ridership of 55,000 average weekday passengers, almost every rider can find a seat. This seated capacity will increase from ~65,000 to ~117,000 with the implementation of the planned and funded service improvements. [Note that my estimate of the total seated capacity is lower than in my previous analysis (144,000), because I'm accounting for the lower transit demand that is experienced during the off-peak periods.] When you apply the standing factor (1.4) the total capacity will be more than 160,000 weekday passengers, as my previous analysis estimated. Thank you for those answers because that is exactly the point to realize that this is a well utilized corridor because of the two highlighted pieces. There is capacity there
|
|