|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 11, 2011 20:03:21 GMT -8
I think this topic merits a thread. It was previously discussed here: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=metrolink&action=display&thread=107&page=11Bart Reed was quoted in the LA Times about Metrolink's plans for new rush-hour express trains on the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino lines: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/metrolink-to-launch-rush-hour-express-trains-to-downtown-los-angeles.html "Metrolink plans rush-hour express trains to downtown""Comments (0) (162) (24) "March 11, 2011 | 4:03 pm "Southern California’s commuter rail service soon will launch its first rush-hour express trains to downtown Los Angeles, cutting the longest travel times by about half an hour each way. "The pilot program, coming as gas prices soar, could make Metrolink trains a more attractive alternative to driving to work, particularly for residents of far-flung suburbs. ""It’ll change the dynamics," said Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, a grassroots public transportation advocacy group. "There’s a whole group that don’t ride [trains] because they can go quicker by driving." "The express trains will run mornings and evenings from the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino to downtown’s Union Station beginning in May. In traffic, both commutes take about two hours by car, according to Google Maps. "The San Bernardino express will take an hour, compared to the current 90 minutes for trains that make about a dozen stops. The express will stop only in Rancho Cucamonga and Covina. The new service from Lancaster, 70 miles north of Los Angeles, will take 88 minutes, compared to the current two-hour Metrolink run. It will make stops in Santa Clarita and Burbank, rather than all of the line’s 11 stations. "The express trains will be on top of the current schedule and will continue for a six-month evaluation period. If successful, express service could be added for other outlying counties, officials said. "Billboards promoting the service will begin appearing next month at freeway choke points in the Antelope Valley and along Interstate 10, a main artery connecting Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. "Getting express trains to Palmdale and Lancaster has been talked about for "many, many years," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents the area. "He predicted the time savings of an hour or more a day could fundamentally change attitudes about commuting options. Many of his constituents battle a daily bottleneck of automobiles and big rigs near Interstate 5 and the 14 Freeway, north of the San Fernando Valley. "With gas prices pushing $4 a gallon, Reed said the economic appeal of the new service could entice people out of their cars. By his estimate, a downtown worker driving solo from the Lancaster area could save hundreds of dollars a month at current gas prices."
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 8, 2011 21:55:13 GMT -8
This starts this morning.
Things going for it: 1) It's an express train shaving off 30 minutes for a total run time of about an hour for SB and an hour and a half for AV. 2) San Bernardino just completed a huge parking structure. 3) If it is successful, it would justify capacity improvements on the SB and AV Lines.
Things going against it: 1) The express train arrives at LAUS at 6:45AM. It would probably be more productive to have a 7:30, 8:00 or 8:30AM arrival. 2) May strain parking facilities at express station stops if some riders choose to drive further to get to an express train. 3) At least one train that I know of will see a longer run-time due to the express train operation.
I really hope this is successful. If they can operate express trains between 7AM and 9AM when the traffic is really bad, it would change everything on the SB Line.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 9, 2011 6:26:47 GMT -8
Spokker, Thanks for the heads up. It turns out that Metrolink keeps and has available very good ridership stats, right down to the number of passengers on each individual train for every day of every month. When I get some free time, I'll put together some ridership graphs to see how the express service is doing.
I was looking at the morning departure schedules, and I see that the new express departures are both timed to be between when the two highest ridership trains are, at least on the SB route. On the AV route, currently the 5:04am train carries 470/day, the 5:54 carries 388/day and the 6:24 carries 406/day. The new express train runs at 5:32am.
RT
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 9, 2011 10:20:01 GMT -8
I look at the ridership stats from time to time. April numbers aren't even up yet so who knows when May would be up, though.
Don't forget to consider the San Manuel effect. I got off a reverse-commute train in San Bernardino and there was a major crowd of old people heading for four or five San Manuel shuttle buses. It was crazy and they practically bowled me over as I tried to get to my car. That program started May 2nd I think.
I was also wrong about the LA arrival time being a factor against the pilot program. Traffic on the 10 is horrible even at 6:30AM.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 9, 2011 10:49:23 GMT -8
I'm guessing the express train has to have early arrival because the lack of double tracks?
There is only so many places and only a few stations where we can park "local" trains for the express to bypass. If Metrolink adds 7:30 or 8:30 arrival for express service, it probably will require elimination of "local" service around those times.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 9, 2011 14:05:27 GMT -8
I'm guessing the express train has to have early arrival because the lack of double tracks? There is only so many places and only a few stations where we can park "local" trains for the express to bypass. If Metrolink adds 7:30 or 8:30 arrival for express service, it probably will require elimination of "local" service around those times. Time to go shake the money tree for double-tracking and electrification of Metrolink. Maybe if the 710 tunnel project implodes we can have some of that money.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 9, 2011 14:41:35 GMT -8
Sooner or later, I think Metrolink NEEDS to be electrified, and definitely double-track the parts which aren't double-tracked.
The whole system doesn't have to be fixed all at once, but it is one of those things that needs to be fixed if Metrolink is going to expand at all. And the arrival of Cal HSR will force some of these issues, regardless of whether the trains share tracks or not.
And yeah, taking that 710 money would be awesome, IF it were possible. I'm sure there are all sorts of legal rules complicating these things. Of course, we're all for those rules when they prevent rail funds from being raided...
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 9, 2011 15:24:58 GMT -8
James, I was just looking through the Measure R project list to see how much would be available of the 710 tunnel were dropped. Is was $780 million. I also happened to see that there was $1.18 billion allocated to Metrolink, with the following text description:
Purchases trains, expands the Eastern Maintenance Facility and upgrades sidings and crossovers to increase speed and safety. Local jurisdictions could use funds to improve parking and station facilities within their cities and offer connecting shuttle services.
No doubt some/most of that $1.18 billion will be used for ongoing improvements. But yes, HSR shared track to Anaheim would be required to finance the electrification I would imagine. The whole HSR/Caltrain problem on the peninsula is that Caltrain doesn't have enough money to even stay alive, let alone electrify. Metrolink funding seems more concrete, so a joint project would probably be easier to get done down here.
RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 9, 2011 18:01:20 GMT -8
I do wonder what's going to happen on the Peninsula. Between the NIMBYs and Caltrain's budget problems, it seems like the first fast trains in the Bay Area might want to go no further north than San Jose (which might not be a bad thing, given Silicon Valley, a large population and Stanford).
And Metrolink absolutely does have other needs beyond electrification. How about implementing TAP? Or replacing the Comets. Station improvements would be nice, too.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 9, 2011 19:02:26 GMT -8
I do wonder what's going to happen on the Peninsula. Between the NIMBYs and Caltrain's budget problems, it seems like the first fast trains in the Bay Area might want to go no further north than San Jose (which might not be a bad thing, given Silicon Valley, a large population and Stanford). I have a feeling that the Peninsula will have the San Gabriel Valley - Gold Line effect when they see the HSR. Like how the SGV was not totally into the Gold Line when it was under construction between East Pasadena and Downtown LA, but now, they're all over wanting more expansions into Asuza, Pomona and Ontario. Same with Metrolink...you see people advocating for more service to Redlands and Perris. That's what I envision will happen with HSR up north. If you build it close enough...more people turn their heads and advocate for it. Right now, if it's "out of sight, then it's out of mind" for most of the general public.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 9, 2011 19:11:19 GMT -8
This is where they are doing the overtake if anyone is interested. I noted it down on my phone as we passed 305 on the siding. I made sure to verify that it was traveling in the same direction by noticing the headlights. maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=34.09482,-117.93222&sll=34.088813,-117.91553&sspn=0.021111,0.045447&ie=UTF8&ll=34.092118,-117.910895&spn=0.021111,0.045447&z=15 Unfortunately, 305 had some time added to its scheduled run time for this express. Most trains take about 6 minutes go travel between Covina and Baldwin Park, but 305 takes 14 minutes. So eight minutes of added delay between those two stations. 305 stops at Covina at 6:15AM and then moves out of the station and sits around for a few minutes. Then the express stops at Covina at 6:19AM and then takes off.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 10, 2011 19:20:43 GMT -8
Express (or at least limited-stop) service was part of the Metrolink San Bernardino schedule some years ago. There were also the Covina Turns for a year or so. Then it went to "all trains make all stops." Now we're back to express service. Historical note: The Pacific Electric history book, "Ride the Big Red Cars" has a photo of the Vincent Ave. grade crossing taken about 50 years ago. The wire is long gone, but a PE crossbuck (and probably a wigwag out of the picture) protects the single-track (probably 75 or 90 lb. rail) crossing of a two-lane road. Today it's double track welded rail, with gates and flashers, crossing a 4-lane street.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 10, 2011 19:29:14 GMT -8
Do you have a copy of the old express schedule?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 11, 2011 21:23:46 GMT -8
Just a heads up. Based on Internet chatter the express from SB to LA has not been able to make it's scheduled run time yet. Based on my experience it was 4 minutes late on Monday. On Tuesday it was 8 minutes late and today it was also late.
Looking forward to see if it can make 6:45AM on the dot.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 12, 2011 20:44:08 GMT -8
Re: Electrification.
Going to electric trains is one way to improve acceleration, and improve total trip times by getting up to speed faster.
But he reason that the current trains have slow acceleration is not just that they are diesels, but that they are heavy, FRA-compliant diesels. That means that they have huge steel frames to comply with the US Government's ridiculous, outdated standards.
In every other modern, developed country (e.g. anywhere in Europe, Japan, etc), trains are designed as light as possible so that they can accelerate as fast as passenger comfort allows, with small motors or engines. For safety, signaling systems and positive train control ensure than two trains can never collide, and locomotives are designed to flex and crumple (like a car) to absorb impacts.
So, if the FRA (which Obama nominally controls, but which is really run by the freight rail companies) changes standards to allow the use of modern, European trains (with modern signaling), we could get almost all of the speed benefits of electrification without the cost of stringing up wires and installing power stations, just by buying new, nearly "off-the-shelf" trains.
I still support electrification for the livability and environmental benefits, but modern DMUs (diesel multiple units) with international standards can be plenty fast.
Metrolink needs to get an exemption from FRA regulations, or get them changed, as part of the CA HSR project and the installation of required signaling improvements.
Double-tracking parts of the single-track lines is another big goal which would allow more frequent trains, in both directions, at rush hour.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 13, 2011 19:51:44 GMT -8
Everything you say about electrification is true, but Metrolink itself has no interest in doing it, per the CEO's talk at a previous Transit Coalition meeting.
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Fenton, but I do admit that it would be much harder to electrify Metrolink than say, Caltrain.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 13, 2011 21:31:47 GMT -8
Everything you say about electrification is true, but Metrolink itself has no interest in doing it, per the CEO's talk at a previous Transit Coalition meeting. I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Fenton, but I do admit that it would be much harder to electrify Metrolink than say, Caltrain. For starters, Metrolink has five times the track mileage and half the ridership. So it's a tough sell, at least now. Electrification is important, but it's probably a post Measure R project -- when they're will be enough rapid transit in the core of LA that the outlying areas served by Metrolink will clamor a bit more for top-notch commuter rail service.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 13, 2011 22:25:25 GMT -8
I think double-tracking should have higher priority than electrification.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 14, 2011 0:06:47 GMT -8
Double-tracking needs to be a higher priority than electrification because only double-tracking will allow enough capacity to increase service to the point where electrification becomes more justified. As far as I can tell, track capacity is a significant constraint on the San Bernardino Line and a definite problem for the Ventura County/Coast Line with the repercussions of that particular bottleneck going all the way up to San Luis Obispo. The sections on the Orange County line between Laguna Niguel and the county line are somewhat problematic as well. As far as electrification goes, I think it would need to be a collaboration between Metrolink, Amtrak, BNSF, and possibly NCTD as well, and it would need to be done incrementally. Between Amtrak, Metrolink, and Coaster, the LA-San Diego line has enough traffic to at least think about electrification. The San Bernardino Line is also fairly busy, both in the peaks and all day long as well as on weekend. Adding the IEOC and 91 Lines, possibly with help from BNSF, would make for a decently-sized self contained electrified system, with the Eastern Maintenance Facility becoming the home of the electric trains.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 14, 2011 1:46:57 GMT -8
Definitely agreed on double-tracking. That is probably the single most important issue affecting the San Bernardino Line and LOSSAN South of Laguna Niguel.
Reports from frequent passengers are that the Surfliner express pilot project is late far too often getting into LA. It loses time in San Diego as the dispatcher gives priority in the inbound AM Coaster. The Surfliner must sit on the siding and wait.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 15, 2011 14:30:30 GMT -8
If the San Bernardino Line is the first to be electrified, it would be "poetic justice"--much of this line between Pomona and LA was the Pacific Electric San Bernardino Line back in the last century (that electrification was dieselized in 1951). Regarding the Santa Fe (now BNSF) line from LA to San Berdoo via Fullerton: About 20 years ago I was on an excursion train that covered part of this line. A spokesman for Santa Fe or Metrolink pointed out new signal support structures and said they were built with enough clearance to allow electrification in the future.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 18, 2011 15:35:20 GMT -8
Re: Electrification. Going to electric trains is one way to improve acceleration, and improve total trip times by getting up to speed faster. But he reason that the current trains have slow acceleration is not just that they are diesels, but that they are heavy, FRA-compliant diesels. That means that they have huge steel frames to comply with the US Government's ridiculous, outdated standards. In every other modern, developed country (e.g. anywhere in Europe, Japan, etc), trains are designed as light as possible so that they can accelerate as fast as passenger comfort allows, with small motors or engines. For safety, signaling systems and positive train control ensure than two trains can never collide, and locomotives are designed to flex and crumple (like a car) to absorb impacts. So, if the FRA (which Obama nominally controls, but which is really run by the freight rail companies) changes standards to allow the use of modern, European trains (with modern signaling), we could get almost all of the speed benefits of electrification without the cost of stringing up wires and installing power stations, just by buying new, nearly "off-the-shelf" trains. I still support electrification for the livability and environmental benefits, but modern DMUs (diesel multiple units) with international standards can be plenty fast. Metrolink needs to get an exemption from FRA regulations, or get them changed, as part of the CA HSR project and the installation of required signaling improvements. Double-tracking parts of the single-track lines is another big goal which would allow more frequent trains, in both directions, at rush hour. I always wondered why Metrolink (and Caltrain, Amtrak Coaster etc) use freight engines instead of light weight DMU engines I see overseas. I just thought that it was cheaper to use existing freight engines.... now I know it is required by law. Thanks for the education. Another transit related "only in America" thing that makes you roll your eyes
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 18, 2011 16:09:19 GMT -8
[ Another transit related "only in America" thing that makes you roll your eyes Exactly. Read this (and weep): zierke.com/shasta_route/sidenotes/safetyconcept-2005-10-23.htmlThe old, outdated rules helped the freight railroads avoid installing modern control systems for 3 generations, which the rest of the world made trains lighter AND safer by preventing them from crashing in the first place. We just make them heavy.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 12, 2011 13:37:43 GMT -8
Metrolink finally got around to posting both the May and the June ridership numbers, allowing for an initial check of how the express service is doing. I just finished checking the numbers for the 3SB route. The new express trains are the 383 in the morning and the 384 in the evening. Here is the March/May/June comparison data for the 3 prior and following trains along with both the morning and evening express trains: Some of this makes total sense, and some of it is a bit puzzling. For example, train 305 leaves SB at 5:17am and takes 1:46 to get to US. If you just hop the 383 Express 28 minutes later, you arrive at US 18 minutes before the previous train. Pretty much a no brainer, also reflected in the numbers. Train 305 dropped from 684, to 388, and then down to 279. People figured it out. The slight total bump in May (3540) did disappear in June (3347), bringing the total ridership for those trains below the March start (3386). The outbound numbers are stronger, and a bit puzzling. Going up ~160 in each of the 2 months. The slow train (#324), didn't have the same ridership decrease as the morning slow train. It rebounded to a higher level in June than March. Not sure what the travel time was in March though. While the morning Express train got more than half of it's riders from the single previous slow train, the evening Express train pulled ~368 riders from the other 6 trains, and added another ~173 new riders for May. Seems like maybe a case of everyone trying to get to work at the same time in the morning, and then heading back home at more spread out times. The high ridership on train 324 I still don't get. Why not wait another 15 minutes, then get home 25 minutes sooner by taking the express? RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 12, 2011 14:57:40 GMT -8
Express trains do require a little bit more thinking. ;D
if you're not used to it, the natural assumption is "the train that leaves first arrives first" and of course that's not the case if you look at the schedule. that happened to me with my mom in Japan once, I wanted to wait and she wanted to take the first one that came along. of course, the first train stopped to let the later train pass.
it also makes sense that people would be headed in at the same time, but there would be dozens of reasons for people to stay at work longer, eat out before heading home, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 12, 2011 15:24:11 GMT -8
I agree that these express trains may take a little bit to catch on. Hopefully, we'll see increased ridership. Overall, ridership at Metrolink seems to be up 10% over 6-9 months ago.
I do think at one point Metrolink was flirting with 50k passengers a weekday. I enjoy looking at the Transit Coalition's ridership history for the MTA and Metrolink, but it has not been updated for several years. It is an easy way to see the trends in ridership over time.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 12, 2011 15:50:22 GMT -8
With these new express trains, I think the prospect of doubling the San Bernardino corridor and relieving congestion on the single rail there will be even more attractive.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 12, 2011 21:12:40 GMT -8
I agree that these express trains may take a little bit to catch on. Hopefully, we'll see increased ridership. Overall, ridership at Metrolink seems to be up 10% over 6-9 months ago. That's not really going to tell you much. There's usually a major, cyclical dip in ridership during November-January due to the holidays. Everyone's traveling less overall. The better info comes from looking at how the June 2011 numbers compare to June 2010 and 2009, etc.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 12, 2011 23:43:58 GMT -8
The high ridership on train 324 I still don't get. Why not wait another 15 minutes, then get home 25 minutes sooner by taking the express? Could it be that many of those people are going to non-express stops and not to San Bernardino, or did you specifically post LAUS-SB ridership? Thanks for compiling the statistics.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 13, 2011 6:05:14 GMT -8
The high ridership on train 324 I still don't get. Why not wait another 15 minutes, then get home 25 minutes sooner by taking the express? Could it be that many of those people are going to non-express stops and not to San Bernardino, or did you specifically post LAUS-SB ridership? Thanks for compiling the statistics. Matthew, You could be right there. The Express service skips a lot of the normal stops. The ridership is broken down by train number and day only, so there is no info about how many people got on/off at any specific stop. RT P.S. AV line express plot coming shortly...
|
|