f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on May 9, 2015 15:31:41 GMT -8
43,600 is the number of additional Phase 2 boardings. This will bring the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 ridership to around 80,000. I think that was 43,600 total Expo boardings, not additional for Phase 2. Wow, really? So Expo is publicly expecting to only net additional 13k from phase 2 over the next 5 years? Personally I've considered the often tossed around 75k as pie in the sky and that they'll be lucky to net 60k. Now it looks like they're setting the bar low so they can celebrate by hitting 50k "early". I don't get it but then I'm not in the train business.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 9, 2015 18:17:23 GMT -8
FWIW, the FEIR projections for Expo Line Phase 1 and Phase 1 & 2 ridership for year 2030 were 27,000 and 64,000, respectively.
Current Phase 1 ridership is 30,000.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on May 10, 2015 10:42:13 GMT -8
43k in 2020 is close to a linear interpolation between 30k ridership now and 64k in 2030. I guess they don't know that that's not how these things tend to work. I'd be very surprised if we're not at 50k by a year after opening, which would be the same ridership/mile it is now.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 10, 2015 10:54:11 GMT -8
43k in 2020 is close to a linear interpolation between 30k ridership now and 64k in 2030. I guess they don't know that that's not how these things tend to work. I'd be very surprised if we're not at 50k by a year after opening, which would be the same ridership/mile it is now. I think 50k is a good estimate, because DTSM is such a major destination. I don't think 6 minute headways will be necessary even a year after opening, but when they implement that it will help with ridership. Of course, ridership is really dependent on running times. I remain skeptical if they can consistently run 46 minute times, especially at rush hour despite what others say here. Before phase 1 opened a lot of people here speculated on running times of 25 minutes or even less and of course we never got close to that.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 10, 2015 12:37:33 GMT -8
46 minutes is Expo's estimate, not people's speculation. Looking at similar sections in Phase 1, 46 minutes sounds just about right. Rush hour doesn't affect train operations in any way, as no automobiles share the tracks. Worst-case scenario will be about 47 minutes. 2 minutes between stations in gated sections is what Phase 1 has. We'll gain a minute in Culver City and lose a minute in Santa Monica for end-of-line slowdown. The last mile should be about 4 or 5 minutes, including the end-of-line slowdown, and 17th St could add another minute due to the light there. Add 1 minute for the Palms Overhead tunnel. You get: 29 - 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + (2 to 3) + (3 to 4) + 1 = 45 to 47 minutes = 46 ± 1 minutes = Expo's estimate ± 1 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 10, 2015 13:34:48 GMT -8
46 minutes is Expo's estimate, not people's speculation. Looking at similar sections in Phase 1, 46 minutes sounds just about right. Rush hour doesn't affect train operations in any way, as no automobiles share the tracks. Worst-case scenario will be about 47 minutes. 2 minutes between stations in gated sections is what Phase 1 has. We'll gain a minute in Culver City and lose a minute in Santa Monica for end-of-line slowdown. The last mile should be about 4 or 5 minutes, including the end-of-line slowdown, and 17th St could add another minute due to the light there. Add 1 minute for the Palms Overhead tunnel. You get: 29 - 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + (2 to 3) + (3 to 4) + 1 = 45 to 47 minutes = 46 ± 1 minutes = Expo's estimate ± 1 minutes. Of course rush hour affects time of the train, because the signal synchronization simply isn't nearly as effective when you have shorter signal cycles. Also, pedestrians crossing intersections really messes with the timing. Expo is just a streetcar after Farmdale and is completely reliant on getting across signalized intersections to make its run.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on May 11, 2015 12:17:21 GMT -8
Of course rush hour affects time of the train, because the signal synchronization simply isn't nearly as effective when you have shorter signal cycles. Also, pedestrians crossing intersections really messes with the timing. Expo is just a streetcar after Farmdale and is completely reliant on getting across signalized intersections to make its run. That's a little misleading - Expo isn't a streetcar after Farmdale simply because it doesn't have to deal with traffic in its right of way. That is not to say that a fully grade-separated right of way wouldn't be more efficient, time-wise.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 11, 2015 13:24:04 GMT -8
. Rush hour doesn't affect train operations in any way It does. More people travel during rush. Increased passenger loads mean slower load/unload, mean more dwell time.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 11, 2015 15:36:35 GMT -8
Also, not many people will ride Expo from 4th Street Santa Monica to 7th Street Metro Center. The end-to-end run time is an obsession of train nerds, not how people actually use transit - the vast majority of the people will ride Expo for only several stations. If Expo runs consistently 30 minutes from Bundy station to USC or 8 minutes from 17th Street station to Westwood Station (just 2 random example), then that will satisfy the people that want to use it for that segment.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 11, 2015 16:39:29 GMT -8
Also, not many people will ride Expo from 4th Street Santa Monica to 7th Street Metro Center. The end-to-end run time is an obsession of train nerds, not how people actually use transit - the vast majority of the people will ride Expo for only several stations. If Expo runs consistently 30 minutes from Bundy station to USC or 8 minutes from 17th Street station to Westwood Station (just 2 random example), then that will satisfy the people that want to use it for that segment. Completely wrong. People, especially choice riders make a determination of how long a transit ride, which includes getting to and fro stations and waiting for the train takes vs. driving. If driving is quicker, many will take that and forget the train. If the train is somehow quicker then you get a lot higher ridership. A lot of people who work Downtown, but live near Culver City tried out Expo when it opened and then promptly abandoned it when they discovered it took them a lot longer to take Expo than to drive and wasn't worth the hassle. Basically, you are left with people who were previously on the bus, don't have a car and have some sort of discounted fare. Metro ridership has been tumbling over the last year despite an improving economy. Not a good sign at all. Building slow rail lines is not the way to reverse that.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on May 12, 2015 9:58:43 GMT -8
Also, not many people will ride Expo from 4th Street Santa Monica to 7th Street Metro Center. The end-to-end run time is an obsession of train nerds, not how people actually use transit - the vast majority of the people will ride Expo for only several stations. If Expo runs consistently 30 minutes from Bundy station to USC or 8 minutes from 17th Street station to Westwood Station (just 2 random example), then that will satisfy the people that want to use it for that segment. End to end, Expo will capture Metro Rapid and BBB 10 riders; but will also stimulate demand because of visibility. Expo should meet or beat the Rapid bus options in the peak morning trips east to DTLA and definitely west from DTLA. Peak and late evening east from DTSM Expo should be preferred, however west late evening BBB is faster and possibly Metro too.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 12, 2015 10:29:02 GMT -8
Also, not many people will ride Expo from 4th Street Santa Monica to 7th Street Metro Center. The end-to-end run time is an obsession of train nerds, not how people actually use transit - the vast majority of the people will ride Expo for only several stations. If Expo runs consistently 30 minutes from Bundy station to USC or 8 minutes from 17th Street station to Westwood Station (just 2 random example), then that will satisfy the people that want to use it for that segment. Completely wrong. People, especially choice riders make a determination of how long a transit ride, which includes getting to and fro stations and waiting for the train takes vs. driving. If driving is quicker, many will take that and forget the train. If the train is somehow quicker then you get a lot higher ridership. A lot of people who work Downtown, but live near Culver City tried out Expo when it opened and then promptly abandoned it when they discovered it took them a lot longer to take Expo than to drive and wasn't worth the hassle. Basically, you are left with people who were previously on the bus, don't have a car and have some sort of discounted fare. Metro ridership has been tumbling over the last year despite an improving economy. Not a good sign at all. Building slow rail lines is not the way to reverse that. That's a different argument. What you are saying is people consider the door to door travel time of transit vs. driving and that has nothing to do with what I was saying in terms of ridership not dictated by end to end run time. The root problem with door to door travel time of transit is zoning, not end to end run time of a train because only a handful of people will ride a train from end to end, and that is a fact. If people have to drive 10 minutes just to get to the train station because they live in a low density residential area, that is a choice they make. In any given transit corridor, proximity to train station plays a far more important role in your travel time, then the actual train operating speed. Expo is not slow by any meaningful measure. It could be slightly faster if the section between 7th Metro and USC receive signal priority or preemption but that will only speed it up by about 1 or 2 minutes. Those people that you mentioned would still drive because they don't live near the train station. It has nothing to do with how fast or slow Expo runs.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 12, 2015 12:47:59 GMT -8
Completely wrong. People, especially choice riders make a determination of how long a transit ride, which includes getting to and fro stations and waiting for the train takes vs. driving. If driving is quicker, many will take that and forget the train. If the train is somehow quicker then you get a lot higher ridership. A lot of people who work Downtown, but live near Culver City tried out Expo when it opened and then promptly abandoned it when they discovered it took them a lot longer to take Expo than to drive and wasn't worth the hassle. Basically, you are left with people who were previously on the bus, don't have a car and have some sort of discounted fare. Metro ridership has been tumbling over the last year despite an improving economy. Not a good sign at all. Building slow rail lines is not the way to reverse that. That's a different argument. What you are saying is people consider the door to door travel time of transit vs. driving and that has nothing to do with what I was saying in terms of ridership not dictated by end to end run time. The root problem with door to door travel time of transit is zoning, not end to end run time of a train because only a handful of people will ride a train from end to end, and that is a fact. If people have to drive 10 minutes just to get to the train station because they live in a low density residential area, that is a choice they make. In any given transit corridor, proximity to train station plays a far more important role in your travel time, then the actual train operating speed. Expo is not slow by any meaningful measure. It could be slightly faster if the section between 7th Metro and USC receive signal priority or preemption but that will only speed it up by about 1 or 2 minutes. Those people that you mentioned would still drive because they don't live near the train station. It has nothing to do with how fast or slow Expo runs. I know quite a few people who live in Culver City and work in Downtown. Some of them tried Expo and found it took longer than driving and gave it up. Why should a busy professional who values their time spend extra time to get to work? In most cases they just won't. Last time I took Expo from Culver City to Downtown early on a weekday, I was shocked by how few Downtown workers there were on the train. In D.C. where the trains don't wait at red light after red light, the trains are packed to the gills with all sorts of people not just those who can't afford a car. There have been articles on Curbed LA about Expo and most of the comments went on about how slow the line is. It is by far the #1 complaint about the Line. Even in a city much smaller than LA, they have more than twice the ridership. How does the Green Line have basically the same ridership as the Gold Line? After all the Gold Line connects to Downtown, Union Station with all of its transit connections, Pasadena and dense neighborhoods like Little Tokyo. The Green Line doesn't connect to the Airport, nor the Norwalk train station and runs in the middle of a freeway not near much density at all.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 12, 2015 14:29:59 GMT -8
That's a different argument. What you are saying is people consider the door to door travel time of transit vs. driving and that has nothing to do with what I was saying in terms of ridership not dictated by end to end run time. The root problem with door to door travel time of transit is zoning, not end to end run time of a train because only a handful of people will ride a train from end to end, and that is a fact. If people have to drive 10 minutes just to get to the train station because they live in a low density residential area, that is a choice they make. In any given transit corridor, proximity to train station plays a far more important role in your travel time, then the actual train operating speed. Expo is not slow by any meaningful measure. It could be slightly faster if the section between 7th Metro and USC receive signal priority or preemption but that will only speed it up by about 1 or 2 minutes. Those people that you mentioned would still drive because they don't live near the train station. It has nothing to do with how fast or slow Expo runs. I know quite a few people who live in Culver City and work in Downtown. Some of them tried Expo and found it took longer than driving and gave it up. Why should a busy professional who values their time spend extra time to get to work? In most cases they just won't. Last time I took Expo from Culver City to Downtown early on a weekday, I was shocked by how few Downtown workers there were on the train. In D.C. where the trains don't wait at red light after red light, the trains are packed to the gills with all sorts of people not just those who can't afford a car. There have been articles on Curbed LA about Expo and most of the comments went on about how slow the line is. It is by far the #1 complaint about the Line. Even in a city much smaller than LA, they have more than twice the ridership. How does the Green Line have basically the same ridership as the Gold Line? After all the Gold Line connects to Downtown, Union Station with all of its transit connections, Pasadena and dense neighborhoods like Little Tokyo. The Green Line doesn't connect to the Airport, nor the Norwalk train station and runs in the middle of a freeway not near much density at all. Again, you are arguing about something that has nothing to do with what I said. I was responding to people complaining about end to end run time, which is not at all meaningful for most Expo riders. Ridership for rail line depends on a number of things, but end to end run time is rarely a factor. If Expo can deliver consistent and predictable travel time (and it does!) then people will use it (and they do - 30,000 or so everyday!) Your issue is with door to door travel time vs. transit and that is much of a factor with zoning and land use pattern then how fast Expo runs from one end to another. Culver City is zoned for relatively low density residential and the fact that it is not easy to walk to the train station. That's not at all related to what I was commenting on. In your example, those people have decided they would rather deal with the variable of traffic congestion than a predictable commute time because they would rather gamble with traffic than spend extra 10 minutes walking to the train station. That's fine. But yet, Expo has what... 30,000 boardings? We can discuss this but making Expo 1 or 2 minutes faster is not going to convince those people you described to take Expo. They already made the decision that consistent travel time is not important to them.Green line connects with 4 of LA's busy bus corridors (Sepulveda, Hawthrone, Crenshaw, Vermont), and Silver Line BRT and Blue Line - and contrary to your statement, it runs through pretty high residential density area, much more so than the Gold line - and you wonder why it has ridership? Remember, density is not determined by the tallness of building... it is determined by number of people occupying those buildings. Green Line not only runs through neighborhoods that have high household ratios to building size, it also happens to run in an area that is more transit dependent.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 12, 2015 14:46:25 GMT -8
I definitely agree that the speed issues are a problem for Expo's reputation. I've become a semi-regular rider myself and it's frustrating that it takes almost 30 minutes to get Downtown from Culver. By contrast, it takes me a little over 40 minutes to bike the same route.
However, the ridership is less affected by speed and more by the fact that L.A.'s system simply isn't built out enough yet. Right now, the rail system serves the outer-lying communities to Downtown L.A. - an important hub for sure, but far from comprehensive of where everyone goes. If the lines legitimately connected neighborhoods (in the form of a more grid-like system), we would definitely see a higher amount/variety of riders.
How is someone from Burbank supposed to use the system to get to Culver City? A bus to the Red Line, the Red Line to Downtown, and then Expo to Culver? It's just too much of a hassle and that's just one example.
Furthermore, the line is only *three years old.* It's going to probably take a few more years before people start recognizing Expo and utilizing it to its potential. There are people who live in L.A. that don't even know we have a rail system. It's issues like that that are in need of rectifying first before speeding up the trains.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 12, 2015 14:55:07 GMT -8
I will use myself as an example...
It takes me 15 minutes to drive to Culver City Station, and then 30 minutes to get to 7th Street Metro Center via Expo. Total travel time including wait time at Culver City ~ let's call it 50 minutes.
Or I could take Jefferson Blvd or I-10 in my car and get to Downtown LA in about 1 hour in rush hour. I already own a car. So I drive most of the time.
Does making Expo travel faster by a few minutes change my decision? Probably not. In fact, I will say it - no! My problem is that I live too far away from Culver City station to make the door to door commute time competitive. Zoning and land use in LA is lagging rail system build out and until people start making housing choices based on proximity to train station or transit availability, this is not going to change.
But yet, I take Expo sometimes because I like the fact that it is consistently 30 minutes to Downtown... I don't need to worry if there is an accident on I-10.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 12, 2015 15:05:30 GMT -8
Rush hour does not affect light-rail operations for all practical purposes. None of the Blue, Gold, or Expo Line timetables show different trip times during rush hour. This is my experience riding the Expo Line as well.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Nov 21, 2015 9:11:33 GMT -8
Shortly, 75% of the votes cast will be out, leaving only 5.
JAN-MAR '16 - 3 APR-JUN '16 - 1 2017+ - 1
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 21, 2015 11:51:36 GMT -8
Well, I have March '16 but methinks that date will soon go the way of the Redcar. While the cynic in me is thinking that 2017+ may have been the solid bet, the pragmatist in me is guessing no one will be right as the actual date will land between July and December of 2016. Because that's just how those things go. In the even that APR-JUNE '16 is the correct pick, who would be the foresightful winner?
|
|
|
Post by transituser23 on Nov 21, 2015 12:19:10 GMT -8
Not to start a new thread but if the poll were asked today what would people guess as to the opening date???
What's your best guess?
My poll response had been Jan 2016 which now appears too early. Someone mentioned early summer 2016 as a realistic opening date. I'm looking forward to a quicker way to travel to Santa Monica so I'm hoping phase 2 opens asap.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 21, 2015 12:48:55 GMT -8
A spring revenue-operation date (ROD) is no longer a possibility and a summer opening day will be a major accomplishment. There are still unresolved problems on the line, preventing the handover to Metro. Even a bigger problem is that currently only one new P3010 rail car a month is coming out of Palmdale instead of five that was expected.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Nov 21, 2015 16:34:09 GMT -8
A spring revenue-operation date (ROD) is no longer a possibility and a summer opening day will be a major accomplishment. There are still unresolved problems on the line, preventing the handover to Metro. Even a bigger problem is that currently only one new P3010 rail car a month is coming out of Palmdale instead of five that was expected. What are the problems?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 22, 2015 12:58:37 GMT -8
I don't know any specifics but hopefully we will find out a lot at the board meeting a week after Thanksgiving. They haven't been holding them for months.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 24, 2015 9:11:29 GMT -8
I thought there was already enough LRVs to run the Foothill Gold Line with the existing Bredas. If that's the case, burn-in the new LRVs on the Foothill Gold Line then ship them to Expo when the line is ready. By the time Expo opens, there should be more than enough. There is already 11 LRVs delivered.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 24, 2015 22:43:02 GMT -8
I hear Foothill will open with some reduced service (twice the headway in the Phase 2A section). So, chances are that they don't need new LRVs.
They also need a lot of spares. They can't tolerate not having spares as in Phase 1 once Phase 2 opens, as it will already be packed.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Nov 25, 2015 9:39:55 GMT -8
I hear Foothill will open with some reduced service (twice the headway in the Phase 2A section). So, chances are that they don't need new LRVs. They also need a lot of spares. They can't tolerate not having spares as in Phase 1 once Phase 2 opens, as it will already be packed. Please don't make misstatements that have nothing to do with the long term Metro operating plan. The Foothill Gold Line Extension was ALWAYS planned to have only 50% of the trains continue to the Eastern Terminal. If there is ridership demand, then all the trains will go to the Eastern Terminal. The spare ratio is the industry standard 20%.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 3, 2015 15:14:22 GMT -8
It was announced at the Expo board meeting today that the mainline handover will be initiated on December 14 and the Stewart St Yard handover will be initiated on December 21. The handover of both will be completed by late December/early January.
The revenue operation date (ROD) will be late April - early May 2016.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 26, 2016 10:32:20 GMT -8
According to Metro CEO, Phil Washington, Expo Phase II will open sometime in May....
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Jan 29, 2016 23:13:21 GMT -8
Expo Line to Santa Monica opening May 21: Source
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 30, 2016 1:03:11 GMT -8
That's eight days after the USC commencement and three days after the summer semester begins. At least, it's well before the orientations.
Only one person out of 20 predicted the opening day correctly in the poll here. I wonder who he/she is.
|
|