|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 14, 2011 18:55:03 GMT -8
The blue line terminus at Willow is already a problem because it creates unequal boarding levels, ie the Long Beach trains are more crowded than the Willow trains. To that end Metro already has preliminary plans to run full rush hour service all the way to Long Beach and every 5 minutes, not every 6. What you propose is actually a reduction in service for what Long Beach should expect and to add insult to injury, it's at the expense of serving a much less busy portion of the system that could be easily accommodated with less service.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 15, 2011 5:36:46 GMT -8
The blue line terminus at Willow is already a problem because it creates unequal boarding levels, ie the Long Beach trains are more crowded than the Willow trains. To that end Metro already has preliminary plans to run full rush hour service all the way to Long Beach and every 5 minutes, not every 6. What you propose is actually a reduction in service for what Long Beach should expect and to add insult to injury, it's at the expense of serving a much less busy portion of the system that could be easily accommodated with less service. what is your source for this? |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 15, 2011 14:56:50 GMT -8
The blue line terminus at Willow is already a problem because it creates unequal boarding levels, ie the Long Beach trains are more crowded than the Willow trains. To that end Metro already has preliminary plans to run full rush hour service all the way to Long Beach and every 5 minutes, not every 6. What you propose is actually a reduction in service for what Long Beach should expect and to add insult to injury, it's at the expense of serving a much less busy portion of the system that could be easily accommodated with less service. what is your source for this? Which part? Anticipated service levels in order to plan equipment needs was discussed here. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 15, 2011 16:38:07 GMT -8
As for the Post-Connector ideas, I feel that the blue line could (as suggested by many on this board) serve more of the East of downtown. I suppose the blue line could alternate destinations of 7th/Metro and Union Station, or have a forced transfer at the Washington station to this "Post-Connector". I think that there are tracks North of Washington on Long Back blvd already. Anyhow, it would be nice for a future line to serve the East of Downtown and then connect to Union Station. Although there is not much development in this area now, think there will be a lot of things going on in this area in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 16, 2011 12:21:59 GMT -8
what is your source for this? Which part? Anticipated service levels in order to plan equipment needs was discussed here. The uneven boardings part. That memo seems old. I've seen Willow trains as recent as a week ago. Of course, yet even more trains will be needed to run a 50+ mile line, and still yet more to get all trains to each end (a near 2 hour duration). My point is a short line is not out of question, and carries some operational efficiencies, after all most of the rideship for blue line seems to come from between 7th St and somewhere before downtown long beach (unscientifically). Those trains empty out pretty good before too far in the loop anyway. Also, a couple months ago at TTC dinner Brandon Farley from Metro Rail explained that Blue Line service is going from every 5 minutes to every 6 minutes to better transfer to the Red Line at 7th St. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 16, 2011 16:37:36 GMT -8
The memo is old, but that's because Metro needed to anticipate service to know how many new railcars to order. Notice that it states that the initial Expo headways will be 12 minutes, which is exactly what was announced just a few weeks ago. And that's the reason that the blue line is going to 6 minute headways. It's to correlate with Expo, not the red line, which is every 10 minutes, not a multiple of 6.
And of course Willow trains would empty out as they got close to Willow. It's the Long Beach trains that are crowded. Go to 7th/metro at the evening rush hour and you will see Willow trains often leave with a few empty seats while the Long Beach trains are always standing room only.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 17, 2011 14:41:56 GMT -8
One possible way to eliminate short turns at Willow is by finally implementing signal priority on the street-running sections in Long Beach. Then the trains will be able to get through that section faster, and it would be possible to extend all the trains to Long Beach without necessarily using more trains or service hours compared to the current situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 17, 2011 15:15:41 GMT -8
The street running in Long Beach is definitely the achilles heel of the Blue Line, which is unfortunate because downtown Long Beach is one of the better destinations served by Metro Rail. (Until Expo Phase II comes online, it is the closest thing to a beach train the system has.)
Long Beach really needs to get its act together and give the Blue Line some priority... they do a decent job with the Passports and their other transit improvements, so why not the light rail?
[ EDIT: To answer my own question, probably the same reason why they don't join TAP. Munis can be so petty. ]
However, at the same time, I'm thinking you might still want to short-line some Blue Line trains post-connector, because a Long Beach to Azusa or a Long Beach to Claremont train does seem like a bit much. I think commuters will get it that some trains don't go the whole route.
I have nothing against the Willow short trains; I've been known to use Willow Station's parking lot precisely because of the street running in Long Beach.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 17, 2011 17:44:50 GMT -8
Is signal prioritization even allowed for street running? Because what we have now is synchronization, not prioritization. It doesn't seem to be the best idea to have traffic lights changing quicker than expected so that a train can go through without stopping. It's an accident waiting to happen. They have prioritization on the ROW portions, but they also have bells and gates to stop cars.
I don't think that much can be done for the loop, but Long Beach should at least be able to synchronize the lights from Willow to 5th street.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 17, 2011 18:00:10 GMT -8
I think what we all have to keep in mind that LA is not like any "normal" metropolis. It's commuting pattern is incredibly large, and the rules that dictate the distance limits of different types of rail don't necessarily apply here the same way they do in, say, Chicago. In other words, i think we have to redefine the limits of Light-Rail and Commuter Rail. I read in the link below that when the Gold Line is extended to Azusa, it would indeed make the corridor (East LA-Union Station-Azusa) the longest light rail line in the country, at over 50 miles. www.rmcconnell.com/transport/ca/lametro/metrorail.phpNow, after the Regional Connector is built, the longest I can see the new Blue Line (ONT-Union Station-Long Beach) getting is roughly 66 miles (I drew a line on Google Earth along the route). However, the link above doesn't mention if the Gold Line (East LA Union Station-Azusa) would be the longest light rail line in the world; meaning that a 66 mile corridor isn't far beyond anything we've built before. Like I said, LA is a massive, polycentric metropolis who's size rivals Tokyo. To me, it seems only natural that it has extremely long rail lines. Anyway, I hope this makes sense..... |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 17, 2011 21:09:04 GMT -8
I think what we all have to keep in mind that LA is not like any "normal" metropolis. It's commuting pattern is incredibly large, and the rules that dictate the distance limits of different types of rail don't necessarily apply here the same way they do in, say, Chicago. In other words, i think we have to redefine the limits of Light-Rail and Commuter Rail. I read in the link below that when the Gold Line is extended to Azusa, it would indeed make the corridor (East LA-Union Station-Azusa) the longest light rail line in the country, at over 50 miles. www.rmcconnell.com/transport/ca/lametro/metrorail.phpNow, after the Regional Connector is built, the longest I can see the new Blue Line (ONT-Union Station-Long Beach) getting is roughly 66 miles (I drew a line on Google Earth along the route). However, the link above doesn't mention if the Gold Line (East LA Union Station-Azusa) would be the longest light rail line in the world; meaning that a 66 mile corridor isn't far beyond anything we've built before. Like I said, LA is a massive, polycentric metropolis who's size rivals Tokyo. To me, it seems only natural that it has extremely long rail lines. Anyway, I hope this makes sense..... I think the important issue is less the length of the lines, but the quality of service that you get, i.e. frequency, train lengths, times of day served with frequent trains. I don't think it makes sense -- and I would not expect to see -- the same service at Azusa as on the busier portions of the Blue Line. This will probably involve turning trains around in Pasadena or DTLA. That's just my uninformed speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 18, 2011 2:48:56 GMT -8
[ EDIT: To answer my own question, probably the same reason why they don't join TAP. Munis can be so petty. ] Signal privileges for Blue Line trains would go through the Long Beach traffic engineers, not Long Beach Transit. Interestingly, Long Beach Transit is not a muni -- not like Santa Monica or Culver City where the city directly operates and manages the system. Operations and management are independent of the city, but the city turns over its sales tax funds to the company to keep buses running. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 19, 2011 13:31:41 GMT -8
Regarding length, I'm fully aware of the comparisons between Tokyo and Los Angeles rail.
In some ways, the comparison is quite apt. The Blue-Gold combination will be about the same length as the Chuo-Sobu Line, which extends far out into the western and eastern suburbs beyond downtown Tokyo. Chuo-Sobu, like "Blue-Gold," is a combination of two commuter rail lines. (In fact, the Chuo Line extends out even further beyond the reach of the combined services.)
Some commuter lines also link with a subway line, the Tozai Line, which serves as the local service in the downtown area — a fairly common practice in Tokyo. Here, of course, the comparison falls apart because it would take some reworking of Metrolink technology to link the San Bernardino Line into "Blue-Gold".
The important thing is, Tokyo's commuter rail system is not only lengthy and extensive, but also impossibly frequent. Rolling stock fleets are huge.
Even with all of this, not every train goes from end-to-end. There are expresses, semi-express, local service, trains that only go so far out... service in the middle of downtown is more frequent than service at the edges, partially because the express nature of the service doesn't start until you get out of downtown.
(Here again, the comparison falls apart because Tokyo's downtown is much more important than Los Angeles', what we call "downtown" is limited, and Tokyo's Metro consists largely of a huge number of "regional connectors")
@ Wad: I think you're nitpicking. No matter what the political structure may be, the result is still an operator which acts like a muni, independent/ aloof from Metro for better or worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 19, 2011 18:19:53 GMT -8
James, are there any services on the Chuo-Sobu line that stop at every station?
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jul 20, 2011 11:18:51 GMT -8
The street running in Long Beach is definitely the achilles heel of the Blue Line, which is unfortunate because downtown Long Beach is one of the better destinations served by Metro Rail. (Until Expo Phase II comes online, it is the closest thing to a beach train the system has.) And yet, Santa Monica went to great lengths to reject funding for grade-separation, in favor of street-running. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 20, 2011 15:11:44 GMT -8
I don't know the full story behind Santa Monica rejecting grade separation. Admittedly, there are disadvantages to grade-separation, especially from a NIMBY point of view. To separate, you either have to dig tunnels or elevate tracks over roads, where they become highly visible.
They may have figured that at-grade construction would be less intrusive than tunnel construction (people are always thinking short-term). There's also the "oh look out the window, there's Santa Monica" factor.
Anybody have a more detailed explanation?
=
Regarding the Chuo-Sobu line, I think there is local, all-stops service. Some of the trains may require a transfer in the middle; I'm not sure. The end-to-end distance is made much more reasonable by Rapid and Express trains.
You could try the same thing with Blue-Gold, but you'd need a lot more trainsets than we have now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 20, 2011 15:27:31 GMT -8
I don't know the full story behind Santa Monica rejecting grade separation. The objection by City of Santa Monica on the grade-separated Olympic Blvd alternative was too-fold: (1) They didn't want the massive 25-ft-high concrete aerial guideway in Downtown Santa Monica for aesthetic reasons. (2) They wanted the character appeal of traditional at-grade trolley/tram, similar to the Downtown Streetcar Project, to promote tourism and attract pedestrian activities in Santa Monica. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 20, 2011 16:53:12 GMT -8
The end-to-end distance is made much more reasonable by Rapid and Express trains. You could try the same thing with Blue-Gold, but you'd need a lot more trainsets than we have now. James, I was just thinking about this the other day. If the future Blue line from Long Beach to Azusa were triple tracked, meaning one additional track between the two that we have now for example (no room, I know, just bear with me here), I believe that adding express service would actually decrease the number of trains being used. For example, say you are starting trains out of Long Beach, and all trains depart at 10 minute intervals and stop at every stop. Close to what we have now. The number of train sets required is based on how many trains are on the tracks at the same time. If it takes 90 minutes from one end of the line to the other, 18 trains will be required. Once each train gets to the other end, it then gets turned around, and vice versa. Now take an express example. Say every other train is an express train that only stops at 2 stops (Long Beach to LAUS and Azusa to LAUS in the morning and the opposite when taking people home) by taking advantage of the 3rd track. When you do that, the express trains get to their destination much sooner than if they made every stop, and could then be turned around and used on the return leg stopping at every stop. I believe the net result would be fewer trains on the tracks at any given time. I could be wrong about that, I tried doing a quick Departure/Arrival spreadsheet and found I believe 13 trains in use for the express versus 14 for the normal. RT |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 20, 2011 17:28:40 GMT -8
That isn't correct, because ultimately you can't take away from local service on a line like the Blue Line, the express would run on top instead and be an addition if you ran it that way because an express service would increase ridership.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 21, 2011 1:41:29 GMT -8
Well, I'll admit that scheduling is not my strong point.  However, I will say (since we're discussing Chuo-Sobu vs. Blue-Gold) that Japanese train frequencies are seemingly impossible by American standards. The frequency would make a huge difference. Also, you would absolutely need to triple track or maybe even quadruple track both Blue and Gold lines (this is strictly theoretical, in practical application I know there are obstacles). I remember when I visited the Ghibli Museum in Mitaka, they had separate platforms for express and local trains. If you're aiming to replicate the Chuo-Sobu, you would have to consider not just multiple levels of service and multiple tracks, but also the idea that 5 minutes — rush hour, off-peak or weekend — in downtown Tokyo is considered a long wait, not a short one. However, I suspect that would be out of our price range. We would have to sacrifice something — more expresses but fewer locals, more locals but not end-to-end service, etc. = BTW, I think Santa Monica's reasoning is flawed. I'm not a fan of elevated aerials, but they're not going to get the trolley/ tram/ streetcar effect from light rail. That ought to be a separate project if that's what they wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 21, 2011 8:25:51 GMT -8
BTW, I think Santa Monica's reasoning is flawed. I'm not a fan of elevated aerials, but they're not going to get the trolley/ tram/ streetcar effect from light rail. That ought to be a separate project if that's what they wanted. Totally agree. I would love to see a SM streetcar running up and down the coast to Venice, and perhaps further. I think it would have tremendous ridership, but I imagine some of the residents of the more underdeveloped residential neighborhoods on the route wouldn't like it. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 21, 2011 8:58:33 GMT -8
BTW, I think Santa Monica's reasoning is flawed. I'm not a fan of elevated aerials, but they're not going to get the trolley/ tram/ streetcar effect from light rail. That ought to be a separate project if that's what they wanted. To be fair, there are ways to make at-grade light rail feel more like a streetcar, but you have to be willing to make the streetscape improvements to pull it off, and not just plop down a bunch of tracks and fences in the middle of a road. San Jose has actually done a great job of this for the segments of VTA light rail that run in the streets in downtown. The key seems, in part, to be giving over major parts of the street to transit only segments and pedestrian plazas.    From what I've seen of SM's plans for Colorado Ave., I'm not convinced they'll do as good a job as VTA did. It seems like SM wants to preserve Colorado Ave as a east-west car road, when really they should embrace it's transformation into a road for Expo, with only local vehicle traffic. My preference would be something like the design of Marmion segment of the Gold Liine, without such slow train speeds. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 21, 2011 9:41:26 GMT -8
To be fair, there are ways to make at-grade light rail feel more like a streetcar, but you have to be willing to make the streetscape improvements to pull it off, and not just plop down a bunch of tracks and fences in the middle of a road. San Jose has actually done a great job of this for the segments of VTA light rail that run in the streets in downtown. The key seems, in part, to be giving over major parts of the street to transit only segments and pedestrian plazas. From what I've seen of SM's plans for Colorado Ave., I'm not convinced they'll do as good a job as VTA did. It seems like SM wants to preserve Colorado Ave as a east-west car road, when really they should embrace it's transformation into a road for Expo, with only local vehicle traffic. My preference would be something like the design of Marmion segment of the Gold Liine, without such slow train speeds. I lived in San Jose for 1 year and the VTA light rail is absolutely horrible. To me, it's the worst light rail system in the USA. It has 30 minute headways off-peak and weekends. The downtown segment is painfully slow (slower than the Blue Line Long Beach loop). I would absolutely hate if the Expo Line were to become anything like VTA. I would hope the train moves around 30 mph when it becomes street running in Santa Monica, that's okay, but with signal priority. The VTA light rail in downtown does not have signal priority and it has to ride painfully slow as it goes through the heaviest pedestrian corridor in downtown San Jose with no gates. Sorry, I have no love for the VTA light rail and would be terrified to "hope" that the Expo Line resembles this in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 21, 2011 13:24:41 GMT -8
To be fair, there are ways to make at-grade light rail feel more like a streetcar, but you have to be willing to make the streetscape improvements to pull it off, and not just plop down a bunch of tracks and fences in the middle of a road. San Jose has actually done a great job of this for the segments of VTA light rail that run in the streets in downtown. The key seems, in part, to be giving over major parts of the street to transit only segments and pedestrian plazas. From what I've seen of SM's plans for Colorado Ave., I'm not convinced they'll do as good a job as VTA did. It seems like SM wants to preserve Colorado Ave as a east-west car road, when really they should embrace it's transformation into a road for Expo, with only local vehicle traffic. My preference would be something like the design of Marmion segment of the Gold Liine, without such slow train speeds. I lived in San Jose for 1 year and the VTA light rail is absolutely horrible. To me, it's the worst light rail system in the USA. It has 30 minute headways off-peak and weekends. The downtown segment is painfully slow (slower than the Blue Line Long Beach loop). I would absolutely hate if the Expo Line were to become anything like VTA. I would hope the train moves around 30 mph when it becomes street running in Santa Monica, that's okay, but with signal priority. The VTA light rail in downtown does not have signal priority and it has to ride painfully slow as it goes through the heaviest pedestrian corridor in downtown San Jose with no gates. Sorry, I have no love for the VTA light rail and would be terrified to "hope" that the Expo Line resembles this in any way. All I meant was that if SM wants a "streetcar like experience" on Colorado, that's basically a design issue and that they would be wise to turn over traffic lanes to make it look nice. Of course, I don't want the trains to be slow. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 21, 2011 14:33:38 GMT -8
high platform boarding vs. low platform makes a difference.
All of Los Angeles' light rail is of the high platform variety, which would really stick out in the sort of streetscape that we've been discussing. (VTA, Portland MAX, San Diego Trolley to some degree)
I have nothing against high platform, in fact I think it fits Los Angeles perfectly well.
However, I do think if you want fast and high platform in a downtown setting, your best bet is underground, as with 7th/ Metro, Boyle Heights, the Regional Connector, even that short stretch through Old Pasadena. Nobody's recommending turning Second Street in Little Tokyo into a pedestrian streetscape.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 21, 2011 16:58:43 GMT -8
I think we have veered off topic on the Expo line discussion...
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 21, 2011 21:57:48 GMT -8
I think we have veered off topic on the Expo line discussion... I spoke with a representative from the contracting building Expo Phase 2, Santa Monica will be the end of the line forever (the tracks abut the freeway). I find that the city viewed through the window on a street-running Expo train will be impressive with aforementioned enhancements, likely more so than grade separations. After all, it is an environmental impact (aesthetics (read: immediate regional character), compliance, noise, etc) Downtown Long Beach makes the commuter oriented light rail line feel like something friendlier, Santa Monica could be better at this, and for commuters it will be better too. Imagine gliding into your beach city by rail after hustling at 55MPH and seeing the highly walkable tree-lined storefronts of downtown Santa Monica, much like downtown Long Beach. The extremities don't have to have the same pressures of areas where the line may be extended. Because of this LA's resulting Metro Rail system will likely have more character (station designs, location variety, scenery, speeds) than just about any American urban rail system, while remaining speedy rapid transit to far off places in the county. Back to the new Blue-Gold Line... I think a rush hour-only short line(s) in the mix (ex: East Pasadena to North Long Beach) will work and happen, while off peak hours trains will go the full route from Long Beach to Azusa. |
|
