|
Post by Philip on Apr 4, 2011 0:17:13 GMT -8
This has been touched on in other threads, so why not get everyone's two cents in here. In my mind, HRT only belongs in a few other select places in L.A. County. This is largely because of cost, but also because of our system growing more in terms of light-rail (thus making it easier to inter-line different rail lines). Here are the only destinations I see possible (some may never get built, but it never hurts to give ideas): -- Glendale: Through a junction with the Vermont/Sunset Red Line station that would run north to Glendale via Los Feliz and Brand. -- Whittier: Eastward extension of the Purple or Red Lines via Whittier Blvd. -- Santa Monica: Westward extension of the Purple Line. Hopefully to be built post-Measure R. -- Athens: Southward extension of the Red or Purple Lines, connecting to the Green Line via Vermont. -- El Monte: Eastward extension of the Red or Purple Lines, taking the place of the El Monte busway. -- Sylmar: Northwestern extension of the Red Line via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon. The truth is, with our system becoming more light-rail based, these extra trunks/extensions for the Red and Purple Lines appear to be the only possible extensions to be built. The Athens one is the most questionable, since it would involve massive reconstruction to the Vermont/Wilshire station (already covered here - transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=899). Then again, maybe there's some I'm not thinking of. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 4, 2011 4:46:05 GMT -8
well, had it not been taken off the table (then again, was it ever an option to begin with?), HRT on the Santa Ana Corridor, with a connection to the Red Line, would have been awesome. well, had it not been taken off the table (then again, was it ever an option to begin with?), HRT on the Santa Ana Corridor, with a connection to the Red Line, would have been awesome. -- Whittier: Eastward extension of the Purple or Red Lines. I would put this at the top of the list right behind the Subway to the Sea. The Gold Line Washington Blvd option is what happens when the NIMBYs get their way, and Whittier has been ignored by Metro for quite a while now. Hopefully it can be extended further to Harbor UCLA Med Center and maybe San Pedro. Perhaps an extension from Lankershim to Sylmar could happen AFTER it connects to Bob Hope Airport. Well there is that option for a "2nd station" in that blog posted a couple months back.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 4, 2011 8:19:57 GMT -8
Not to be a pessimist, but I think the only one on offer is extending the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica.
The West Hollywood line is a long-shot, but if and when that is built it will likely be light-rail.
Everything else will at best be light-rail.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 4, 2011 9:26:51 GMT -8
Not to be a pessimist, but I think the only one on offer is extending the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica. The West Hollywood line is a long-shot, but if and when that is built it will likely be light-rail. Everything else will at best be light-rail. I tend to agree with Dan here. And really, we really should approach this question from the perspective of "how can we best improve transit in Los Angeles County" -- where "best" means greatest time savings, comfort, cost effectiveness, etc. -- and not from the perspective of "where can we build more rail?" And if you think about how to make the most improvement, you gotta start looking at a rapid and massive buildout of the bus-only lane network in the county. Once you build out Measure R, we'll basically have a county-wide backbone network of commuter rail, heavy rail, LRT and BRT. And even when you do that, there are still going to be 1,500,000+ bus riders in County -- if not many more hopefully. Just think. For the cost of 5 miles of subway, you could build probably build a hundred miles of bus-only lanes on major streets all over Los Angeles. To me, that has to be the priority before you start building more HRT to increasingly marginal corridors.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 4, 2011 10:34:03 GMT -8
Well there is that option for a "2nd station" in that blog posted a couple months back. I do like that idea, but even more, I like the idea on bzcat's map, routing the line under Alvarado and having it connect to the Red Line at MacArthur Park. This avoids the messy scenario of rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont. The only problem is that it misses Hollywood and Griffith Park. Do you think that's surmountable? Just think. For the cost of 5 miles of subway, you could build probably build a hundred miles of bus-only lanes on major streets all over Los Angeles. To me, that has to be the priority before you start building more HRT to increasingly marginal corridors. I agree completely, but then the question also remains: How do you make buses attractive to the average commuter? No matter how frequent or reliable the service is, it seems like the bus has a stigma that it just can’t get rid of, the biggest of which is speed (or lack thereof). Sure, dedicated bus lanes are inexpensive, but politically still difficult to sell to the public at large and get off the ground. I have plenty of friends who tell me all the time that they would ride public transit in a heartbeat…if it was rail. In a perfect world, people would simply do what’s best for the environment (and their wallets), swallow their pride, and try taking the bus more often or take it all the time. But you gotta get them there first. Buses, even those with dedicated lanes, will always be seen as slow, unreliable, and, unfair or not (to some extent), unsanitary. Just look at the problems they’re having getting the bus-only lanes on Wilshire; and it’s one of the most congested corridors in the county. I think once Measure R is built out (and maybe a few more lines/extensions, such as the Yellow Line, Crenshaw to Wilshire, and the Orange Line to Pasadena), only then will buses start to attract more unlikely riders; because most of the buses will be serving major transit hubs AND specific corridors, rather than just the latter.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 4, 2011 12:29:09 GMT -8
Creating a new subway line that goes south on Vermont Blvd and terminating somewhere along the Green Line would be a huge boon to the ridership on the overburdened 204, 754, and other adjacent bus routes. This corridor contains some of the highest density neighborhoods Los Angeles County and the western United States in general. I think it's the only route that has the ridership to justify the expense involved with subway heavy rail in Los Angeles, which some of that can be discounted when the line could come above ground and be elevated above S. Vermont in the very wide former Pacific Electric street-running right of way.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 4, 2011 12:51:35 GMT -8
I really like the idea of a Glendale rail line with the junction at either Vermont/Sunset or Vermont/Santa Monica.
--Glendale: Through a junction with the Vermont/Sunset Red Line station that would run north to Glendale via Los Feliz and Brand.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 4, 2011 13:14:37 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but i just don't think trying to build everything as soon as possible while using the cheapest options available is more efficient, in the long-run, than thinking AHEAD. Especially considering once some of these decisions are made, there are gonna be those that say "it's too expensive to upgrade". Not to be a pessimist, but I think the only one on offer is extending the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica. The West Hollywood line is a long-shot, but if and when that is built it will likely be light-rail. Metro, based on it's decisions, seems to have all but ditched the Pink Line, and instead appears to be moving forward with the Crenshaw North extension on San Vincente. Why? I know your a fan of light-rail, and rightly so; however, does a light-rail line down Vermont really make that much sense to you..... 20 years from now? I do like that idea, but even more, I like the idea on your map, routing the line under Alvarado and having it connect to the Red Line at MacArthur Park. This avoids the messy scenario of rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont. The only problem is that it misses Hollywood and Griffith Park. Do you think that's surmountable? Well, actually, that's not my idea. And, when it comes to following bus ridership patterns, I don't think it's surmountable, because it basically ignores the entire purpose of the Vermont Corridor.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 4, 2011 13:25:51 GMT -8
Well, actually, that's not my idea. And, when it comes to following bus ridership patterns, I don't think it's surmountable, because it basically ignores the entire purpose of the Vermont Corridor. Yes, I should clarify: this was bzcat’s idea. You can see it here: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.046401,-118.261299&spn=0.183769,0.363579&z=12 And it does not ignore the Vermont Corridor; rather, it continues from MacArthur Park to Vermont/Olympic, and then south the rest of the way. And re: light-rail on Vermont: The only reason to make the future Vermont Line light-rail is if 1) Wilshire/Vermont is going to be the terminus or 2) There is no way to tie the Vermont Line into the Red Line. Otherwise, heavy rail should be built.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 4, 2011 13:33:26 GMT -8
Well there is that option for a "2nd station" in that blog posted a couple months back. I do like that idea, but even more, I like the idea on bzcat's map, routing the line under Alvarado and having it connect to the Red Line at MacArthur Park. This avoids the messy scenario of rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont. The only problem is that it misses Hollywood and Griffith Park. Do you think that's surmountable? Just think. For the cost of 5 miles of subway, you could build probably build a hundred miles of bus-only lanes on major streets all over Los Angeles. To me, that has to be the priority before you start building more HRT to increasingly marginal corridors. I agree completely, but then the question also remains: How do you make buses attractive to the average commuter? No matter how frequent or reliable the service is, it seems like the bus has a stigma that it just can’t get rid of, the biggest of which is speed (or lack thereof). Sure, dedicated bus lanes are inexpensive, but politically still difficult to sell to the public at large and get off the ground. I have plenty of friends who tell me all the time that they would ride public transit in a heartbeat…if it was rail. In a perfect world, people would simply do what’s best for the environment (and their wallets), swallow their pride, and try taking the bus more often or take it all the time. But you gotta get them there first. Buses, even those with dedicated lanes, will always be seen as slow, unreliable, and, unfair or not (to some extent), unsanitary. Just look at the problems they’re having getting the bus-only lanes on Wilshire; and it’s one of the most congested corridors in the county. I think once Measure R is built out (and maybe a few more lines/extensions, such as the Yellow Line, Crenshaw to Wilshire, and the Orange Line to Pasadena), only then will buses start to attract more unlikely riders; because most of the buses will be serving major transit hubs AND specific corridors, rather than just the latter. Sure many Angelenos are uninterested in riding buses right now, because we don't invest enough in out bus infrastructure. I think if we expanded the Wilshire/Ventura style Metro Rapid station infrastructure on more corridors, you'll help close the gap between the rail and tire experience. If every Metro Rapid line had identifiable station canopies, real-time bus info displays, pre-boarding payment, boarding at all doors, and its own travel lane (a.k.a. the Orange Line w/o the separate street), then you'd see a lot fewer people saying "ew, bus." All of those investments combined would speed up travel times by at least 20%. And on top of that you'd have a real bus network that people could easily identify and know when the next bus is coming. Combine all that with five dollar gas, and all of a sudden Angelenos stop caring whether their transit vehicle runs on tires or rails -- as long as it gets them where they need to go. And more to the point, at makes a huge difference for people who are already riding transit.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 4, 2011 14:57:33 GMT -8
Sure many Angelenos are uninterested in riding buses right now, because we don't invest enough in out bus infrastructure. I think if we expanded the Wilshire/Ventura style Metro Rapid station infrastructure on more corridors, you'll help close the gap between the rail and tire experience. If every Metro Rapid line had identifiable station canopies, real-time bus info displays, pre-boarding payment, boarding at all doors, and its own travel lane (a.k.a. the Orange Line w/o the separate street), then you'd see a lot fewer people saying "ew, bus." You make an interesting point here. Out of curiosity, is there a reason Wilshire and Ventura are the only corridors with that type of treatment? I know that they're busy, but I don't see why corridors like Vermont, Western or even Santa Monica are without it.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Apr 4, 2011 15:56:18 GMT -8
I agree completely, but then the question also remains: How do you make buses attractive to the average commuter? No matter how frequent or reliable the service is, it seems like the bus has a stigma that it just can’t get rid of, the biggest of which is speed (or lack thereof). Sure, dedicated bus lanes are inexpensive, but politically still difficult to sell to the public at large and get off the ground. I have plenty of friends who tell me all the time that they would ride public transit in a heartbeat…if it was rail. If every Metro Rapid line had identifiable station canopies, real-time bus info displays, pre-boarding payment, boarding at all doors, and its own travel lane (a.k.a. the Orange Line w/o the separate street), then you'd see a lot fewer people saying "ew, bus." All of those investments combined would speed up travel times by at least 20%. And on top of that you'd have a real bus network that people could easily identify and know when the next bus is coming. Combine all that with five dollar gas, and all of a sudden Angelenos stop caring whether their transit vehicle runs on tires or rails -- as long as it gets them where they need to go. The other night I decided to catch a bus. The scheduled coach did not arrive, nor did the next coach, but three Rapids did pass. "Ew, bus." never occurred to me. Nor did I wonder, "If only we had a train!" "Won't be fooled again" was more like it. It wasn't a matter that the bus is slow - it never arrived, and I was made to watch as I was passed up three (effectively five) times. Putting lipstick on a pig with pre-boarding, canopies, and "Maybe Next Bus" (been there, done that) signs, and proclaiming a mythical/statistical 20% trip improvement time will not convert non-riders. Punishing drivers with $5/gallon gas won't either. If you want to entice new ridership on a bus route, we need to address the systemic failures it currently embodies, not shrug, apologize, and quote stats. In my book, that means a bus has its own lane 24x7, along with signal pre-emption, exempted from ADA*/wheelchair dwell time, 2-5 minute headways with no schedule, and electric drive, so cross-town speeds of 20mph+ are the norm for *local* service. Make those buses and bus stops clean, safe, and reliable at all hours - and THEN you'll see people choose to ride.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 4, 2011 17:21:58 GMT -8
And it does not ignore the Vermont Corridor; rather, it continues from MacArthur Park to Vermont/Olympic, and then south the rest of the way. I meant Vermont as a whole. It avoids what's north of Wilshire. Well, obviously if it was HRT, it would pretty much HAVE to connect to the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 6, 2011 10:54:59 GMT -8
Sure many Angelenos are uninterested in riding buses right now, because we don't invest enough in out bus infrastructure. I think if we expanded the Wilshire/Ventura style Metro Rapid station infrastructure on more corridors, you'll help close the gap between the rail and tire experience. If every Metro Rapid line had identifiable station canopies, real-time bus info displays, pre-boarding payment, boarding at all doors, and its own travel lane (a.k.a. the Orange Line w/o the separate street), then you'd see a lot fewer people saying "ew, bus." You make an interesting point here. Out of curiosity, is there a reason Wilshire and Ventura are the only corridors with that type of treatment? I know that they're busy, but I don't see why corridors like Vermont, Western or even Santa Monica are without it. Wilshire Blvd and Ventura Blvd were the original Metro Rapid Line corridors. When they began to rollout the concept to other corridors the NextBus signs and nice station-style shelter setups were diluted (dropped) to realize the full vision of a network of Rapids. The availability of NextBus real time tracking on our phones makes the NextBus signs a moot point but the really nice station shelters will be missed (along with the sort of class they bring to riding the bus). They really could be used in my neighborhood on Venice Blvd where there is absolutely no protection from the elements. At least it's sunny majority of days. They ought to at least install the shelters and real time info at major transfer points, like for example in my 'hood: Venice/Cadillac, Venice/Crenshaw, Venice/Bagley, Venice/Figueroa, Main/Venice Way.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 6, 2011 17:52:41 GMT -8
If every Metro Rapid line had identifiable station canopies, real-time bus info displays, pre-boarding payment, boarding at all doors, and its own travel lane (a.k.a. the Orange Line w/o the separate street), then you'd see a lot fewer people saying "ew, bus." All of those investments combined would speed up travel times by at least 20%. And on top of that you'd have a real bus network that people could easily identify and know when the next bus is coming. Combine all that with five dollar gas, and all of a sudden Angelenos stop caring whether their transit vehicle runs on tires or rails -- as long as it gets them where they need to go. The other night I decided to catch a bus. The scheduled coach did not arrive, nor did the next coach, but three Rapids did pass. "Ew, bus." never occurred to me. Nor did I wonder, "If only we had a train!" "Won't be fooled again" was more like it. It wasn't a matter that the bus is slow - it never arrived, and I was made to watch as I was passed up three (effectively five) times. Putting lipstick on a pig with pre-boarding, canopies, and "Maybe Next Bus" (been there, done that) signs, and proclaiming a mythical/statistical 20% trip improvement time will not convert non-riders. Punishing drivers with $5/gallon gas won't either. If you want to entice new ridership on a bus route, we need to address the systemic failures it currently embodies, not shrug, apologize, and quote stats. In my book, that means a bus has its own lane 24x7, along with signal pre-emption, exempted from ADA*/wheelchair dwell time, 2-5 minute headways with no schedule, and electric drive, so cross-town speeds of 20mph+ are the norm for *local* service. Make those buses and bus stops clean, safe, and reliable at all hours - and THEN you'll see people choose to ride. I'm totally with you. I don't think our visions are mutually exclusive at all.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Boothe on Apr 1, 2012 21:10:58 GMT -8
Low cost micro-subways being explored
by Kenneth Strumwell
reporting from San Diego
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Impressed by the sophistication of Mexican drug smuggling tunnels operating between Tijuana and San Diego, the San Diego Municipal Transit Authority is studying the feasibility of using Mexican tunneling contractors to build "micro subways" in their service area.
"Obviously, these contractors have the capability to deliver functional, cost-effective projects in demanding situations", said a spokesperson for the agency who wished to remain anonymous due to the controversial nature of the concept.
"The opportunities for micro-subways are really quite impressive. Contractors that have built sophisticated underground corridors without the detection of law enforcement should have the ability to minimize surface-level disruptions typically associated with subway construction. In addition, their stealth techniques would allow us to avoid a lot of community opposition to our projects by not publicizing them at all until they were completed, speeding up the construction process and saving money."
The unique micro subways are also expected to attract a new type of public transit user. "We call them thrill riders," said the source. "With such a high level of interest in the clandestine drug tunnels, we believe this will translate into an exotic user experience that will boost ridership". As an added bonus, fares for using the system could be lower than normal, due to the reduced construction costs. However, patrons would be required to sign a waiver, good for one year, to absolve the agency of liability claims in the event of a tunnel collapse or other problems.
Concepts for the small subway vehicles themselves are still being explored. The agency anticipates holding a student design competition to get fresh ideas, tapping into the young talent pool of the Tijuana school system where many of the cross-border tunneling experts got their education.
SDMTA believes another profit center could be developed by using the system for freight shipments after passenger operation hours. This would require careful monitoring, however, to prevent the contractors from adding hidden line extensions to the border region.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 2, 2012 0:08:12 GMT -8
I love this thread! OK, I'm thinking.... There is that Red/Purple Line access track that runs along the the L.A. River. to about 7th St. It has been mentioned as a spur. So, why not take it south through the city of Vernon and under Pacific/Long Beach Bl., through Huntington Park, Unincorporated Walnut Park, Southgate, and Lynwood. The terminus would be at the Long Beach Green Line Station. Stations would be built for Slauson/Randolph, Florence Av., Firestone Bl., and Tweedy Bl.
The justification for this route is that Huntington Park's lacks ready access to any major freeway; this line would totally make up for that. The next major issue is whether or not the cost can be substantiated for the community. The Pacific Bl. shopping district has the potential to become something special. Gelsons, Sur La Table, Trader Joe's, Macy's, etc. won't find much of a market there. But there are plenty of other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 2, 2012 13:48:58 GMT -8
I love this thread! OK, I'm thinking.... There is that Red/Purple Line access track that runs along the the L.A. River. to about 7th St. It has been mentioned as a spur. So, why not take it south through the city of Vernon and under Pacific/Long Beach Bl., through Huntington Park, Unincorporated Walnut Park, Southgate, and Lynwood. The terminus would be at the Long Beach Green Line Station. Stations would be built for Slauson/Randolph, Florence Av., Firestone Bl., and Tweedy Bl. The justification for this route is that Huntington Park's lacks ready access to any major freeway; this line would totally make up for that. The next major issue is whether or not the cost can be substantiated for the community. The Pacific Bl. shopping district has the potential to become something special. Gelsons, Sur La Table, Trader Joe's, Macy's, etc. won't find much of a market there. But there are plenty of other possibilities. Some of the maps for the West Santa Ana Branch Line show a line going North from where it meets the Green line to Union Station. It looks like most of the newer maps only show it branching off the Green line. I think it makes more sense to use light rail on a line going through this area, and to save the Red line extension for Whittier Blvd. More discussion on the West Santa Ana Branch Line in its forum.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 3, 2012 23:25:35 GMT -8
I've seen a lot of those renderings. My problem is that I like them all; it's a consequence of living in an area that is often neglected. Of course, it's hard to consider an area when there is no unity and stigmas are perpetuated: "Bell Gardens is full of white trash!" That was until the late 80's; now it's meth central. "Downey is full of snooty white people!" Now it's full of snooty Latinos. "Bell, Southgate, and Maywood is full of corrupt politicians" That's a surprise? "The Pacific Bl. shopping district in Huntington Park is packed full of dark, short minorities!" So are The Shops at Montebello, the Stonewood Mall, and Walmart.
I really have to hand it to the Foothill communities in the SGV. They got together, decided they wanted the Gold Line extension, and are making it happen.
Now, if you're looking for a successful HRT Subway line: As an extension that starts in DTLA at Union Station, it has to be Valley Bl. all the way to the El Monte Bus Station. I've seen/read the plan about the Silver Line, but geez! I continue to think that using the trench is a terrible way to go simply because it's already there.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 4, 2012 10:14:39 GMT -8
^ Yeah, the ACE is Union Pacific's baby, and trying to build anything they think will disrupt its operations is a nonstarter.
Instead of running the Silver Line to La Puente via the trench, I'm starting to think that it should:
a) head to Arcadia via Huntington and the PE ROW. Yeah yeah I know they're already getting the Gold Line, but it misses the huge pocket of density south of horsetrack.
b)head to Temple City and North El Monte via Main St. and Las Tunas.
or (and here's where it gets interesting),
c) run on Valley blvd to the El Monte Bus station.
Heres why I think light-rail should go on Valley instead of heavy-rail: Another option for heavy-rail that hasn't been discussed much is running down the El Monte Busway through CSLA, and then jumping on Garvey Ave through Monterey Park, South San Gabriel, Rosemead, etc. You could build a wye structure after Union Station to allow Red/Purple line trains to go to Monterey Park(and beyond) as well as to the Arts District and eventually, Whittier.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 4, 2012 13:36:09 GMT -8
I'm partial to Plan B. LRT is cheaper. I mentioned that idea years ago and a couple of gentlemen on this message bemoaned the idea. Alhambra has poured a lot of money into making Main St. trendy. Why not make it more accessible?
There was also an idea of running the Gold Line from Pomona Bl. north onto Atlantic to east onto Garvey, and to the El Monte Bus Station. That idea has already been shot down. It's a crying shame because it makes more sense than running it to Garfield then Washington or running it near/by/down/under/in/over/through/within/parallel to the 60 frwy. I wonder what it would take to bring back the Atlantic/Garvey model?
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 7, 2012 14:15:02 GMT -8
A couple of things to consider in drawing these line on the map. First of all, any time a line splits, the frequency on each branch is halved. That means that if, say, the downtown segment of the Red/Purple line has a train every 4 minutes, then past Wilshire/Vermont, each branch will have a train every 8 minutes. If you add a branch to Glendale, that means Hollywood and Glendale will each get a train every 16 minutes. If you decide to split the line again, say by having an extension from North Hollywood going to the Burbank Airport and another going somewhere else, you halve the frequency again, so each branch now only gets a train every 32 minutes. Another thing to consider is the capacity of heavy rail versus light rail. For light rail, I think the Blue Line is realistically not too far from its peak capacity, with 3 car trains running every five minutes, because with grade crossings, there needs to be time for cross traffic. The Red Line, on the other hand, has no such constraints, and could probably run 30 trains per hour, as other similar heavy rail systems do, which means that even though it already has nearly double the ridership of the Blue Line, the current peak service only uses one third of the capacity of the infrastructure. So while heavy rail has a high cost, it also has a very high capacity, which is useful in cases where at-grade light rail is not appropriate or would not be able to cope with demand. There are only a few places where that sort of capacity is warranted: mostly along existing corridors with high ridership, and across any natural bottleneck such as the Santa Monica Mountains. Based on these principles, there aren't a whole lot of places in LA that need heavy rail extensions. Besides Wilshire, the other logical corridors are Whittier Blvd (across the bottleneck of the LA River), the Sepulveda Pass, and Vermont. Even in the fairly long term, there might be a dozen light rail lines and branches all over the county, but only 3 or 4 heavy rail lines.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 7, 2012 20:57:48 GMT -8
I don't think Glendale needs a branch tho. The Yellow Line and/or Burbank Transit Corridor would be in a better position to do this.
Speaking of ridership, does anyone know that of Line 70, which runs between downtown and El Monte via Garvey and Santa Anita?
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 7, 2012 22:20:40 GMT -8
A couple of things to consider in drawing these line on the map. First of all, any time a line splits, the frequency on each branch is halved. That means that if, say, the downtown segment of the Red/Purple line has a train every 4 minutes, then past Wilshire/Vermont, each branch will have a train every 8 minutes. If you add a branch to Glendale, that means Hollywood and Glendale will each get a train every 16 minutes. If you decide to split the line again, say by having an extension from North Hollywood going to the Burbank Airport and another going somewhere else, you halve the frequency again, so each branch now only gets a train every 32 minutes. Another thing to consider is the capacity of heavy rail versus light rail. For light rail, I think the Blue Line is realistically not too far from its peak capacity, with 3 car trains running every five minutes, because with grade crossings, there needs to be time for cross traffic. The Red Line, on the other hand, has no such constraints, and could probably run 30 trains per hour, as other similar heavy rail systems do, which means that even though it already has nearly double the ridership of the Blue Line, the current peak service only uses one third of the capacity of the infrastructure. So while heavy rail has a high cost, it also has a very high capacity, which is useful in cases where at-grade light rail is not appropriate or would not be able to cope with demand. There are only a few places where that sort of capacity is warranted: mostly along existing corridors with high ridership, and across any natural bottleneck such as the Santa Monica Mountains. Based on these principles, there aren't a whole lot of places in LA that need heavy rail extensions. Besides Wilshire, the other logical corridors are Whittier Blvd (across the bottleneck of the LA River), the Sepulveda Pass, and Vermont. Even in the fairly long term, there might be a dozen light rail lines and branches all over the county, but only 3 or 4 heavy rail lines. I think this needs to be printed out, framed, and mounted on every LA transit enthusiast/advocates mantle.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 8, 2012 8:08:02 GMT -8
A couple of things to consider in drawing these line on the map. First of all, any time a line splits, the frequency on each branch is halved. That means that if, say, the downtown segment of the Red/Purple line has a train every 4 minutes, then past Wilshire/Vermont, each branch will have a train every 8 minutes. If you add a branch to Glendale, that means Hollywood and Glendale will each get a train every 16 minutes. If you decide to split the line again, say by having an extension from North Hollywood going to the Burbank Airport and another going somewhere else, you halve the frequency again, so each branch now only gets a train every 32 minutes. Another thing to consider is the capacity of heavy rail versus light rail. For light rail, I think the Blue Line is realistically not too far from its peak capacity, with 3 car trains running every five minutes, because with grade crossings, there needs to be time for cross traffic. The Red Line, on the other hand, has no such constraints, and could probably run 30 trains per hour, as other similar heavy rail systems do, which means that even though it already has nearly double the ridership of the Blue Line, the current peak service only uses one third of the capacity of the infrastructure. So while heavy rail has a high cost, it also has a very high capacity, which is useful in cases where at-grade light rail is not appropriate or would not be able to cope with demand. There are only a few places where that sort of capacity is warranted: mostly along existing corridors with high ridership, and across any natural bottleneck such as the Santa Monica Mountains. Based on these principles, there aren't a whole lot of places in LA that need heavy rail extensions. Besides Wilshire, the other logical corridors are Whittier Blvd (across the bottleneck of the LA River), the Sepulveda Pass, and Vermont. Even in the fairly long term, there might be a dozen light rail lines and branches all over the county, but only 3 or 4 heavy rail lines. I think this needs to be printed out, framed, and mounted on every LA transit enthusiast/advocates mantle. Agreed. And I'd expand on the comments regarding splitting lines to say that the effects on light rail are even worse because you are limiting capacity on lines that are already lower capacity. Also we're seeing first hand with blue/expo how difficult it can be to coordinate street running lines subject to a variety of delays. So advocates that want everyone to get a one-seat ride should think carefully.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 8, 2012 8:50:24 GMT -8
I think this needs to be printed out, framed, and mounted on every LA transit enthusiast/advocates mantle. Agreed. And I'd expand on the comments regarding splitting lines to say that the effects on light rail are even worse because you are limiting capacity on lines that are already lower capacity. Also we're seeing first hand with blue/expo how difficult it can be to coordinate street running lines subject to a variety of delays. So advocates that want everyone to get a one-seat ride should think carefully. Here's one of many articles from Human Transit that discusses this: www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 8, 2012 22:14:50 GMT -8
Very interesting! Except for the Red/Purple Lines, I can't think of another example of this branching principle in our Metro system. The Expo/Blue Lines don't count since the Connector is going to bridge and transform both branches of the Gold Line into north-south and east-west running lines.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 9, 2012 1:30:35 GMT -8
Very interesting! Except for the Red/Purple Lines, I can't think of another example of this branching principle in our Metro system. The Expo/Blue Lines don't count since the Connector is going to bridge and transform both branches of the Gold Line into north-south and east-west running lines. In fact the capacity of the downtown connector will limit the possible frequencies on the 4 branches. That makes branches further out on the lines less feasible. I think the downtown connector is a good balance, though. Eventually, we might get another downtown connector if capacity maxes out on the current planned one.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 9, 2012 16:27:17 GMT -8
OK, I wasn't following until it hit me: bottle neck!
I picture the Connector maxing out sooner rather than later. Of course, that may in turn spawn interest for a Purple Line extension into East L.A. again.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 24, 2012 14:20:14 GMT -8
OK, I wasn't following until it hit me: bottle neck! I picture the Connector maxing out sooner rather than later. Of course, that may in turn spawn interest for a Purple Line extension into East L.A. again. Tom LaBonge wanted an extension to the Arts District. I just don't see either of these happening. I just think Metro is only considering light-rail extensions from this point forward. It is more likely we'd see both of those Gold Line Eastside extensions being approved.
|
|