|
Post by Elson on May 18, 2012 12:52:04 GMT -8
I still remember when the Blue Line was limited to 2 car trains. When the platforms were augmented to accommodate 3 car trains, it was a big whoopty-do. I don't think augmenting the platforms to accommodate 4 cars is going to work out since it would require digging up 7th/Metro to extend the platforms and who knows what chaos it's going to conjure up or how much it would cost (I imagine it's expensive though). On the other hand, the 3 car limitation keeps the doors open for the creation of parallel service on other corridors when the Blue Line maxes out (that may be coming in the next decade or so). Vermont Av., which is already in the LRTP, may suddenly move up a tier while Avalon Bl., Pacific Bl./Long Beach Bl., and Atlantic Av. may start garnering some indirect interest. Or maybe Metro will do a PE and four-track the Blue Line!
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 18, 2012 13:25:18 GMT -8
I think that's a great idea: The Blue Line, four-track system...a system within a bigger system! If it weren't because Union Pacific continues to utilize the two tracks next to the Blue Line, I'm sure that by now Metro would have made a motion to acquire them, unless it's something else that keeps them from it, like money and/or politics.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 19, 2012 13:18:07 GMT -8
The main reason to four-track the Blue Line would be to add capacity, and it certainly wouldn't be a good idea to reduce local service too much in favor of the express trains. The problem is that right now, once the ROW ends, and especially once the Expo Line joins in, there simply isn't any spare capacity on the street-running section. There are only two ways to solve that problem: add a second route into Downtown (maybe one that follows the old PE route more closely), or extend the subway along Flower St past the junction with Expo. Until that's done, it doesn't really make sense to talk about adding branches to the Blue Line or express service or anything like that. Even with a subway, the Expo Line will take up 10 trains per hour, and the existing Blue Line service is 10 trains per hour, and the total capacity of the Regional Connector will be 30 trains per hour at best. This puts a limit on how many extra trains, whether expresses or trains from branches, can run on the Blue Line without a second route into Downtown.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 19, 2012 18:42:59 GMT -8
If there are 4 tracks on long beach ave the most obvious solution would be to split the line at or around Washington and have some of the extra trains run up alameda to little Tokyo.
Such a route was already studied as part of a potential line on slauson joining with the blue line. Long term probably a good idea although right now most if the demand would be to go to downtown and not to bypass it.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 19, 2012 19:27:03 GMT -8
Hmm? Are there any projections as to when the Blue Line will reach capacity?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 20, 2012 4:20:47 GMT -8
If there are 4 tracks on long beach ave the most obvious solution would be to split the line at or around Washington and have some of the extra trains run up alameda to little Tokyo. Such a route was already studied as part of a potential line on slauson joining with the blue line. Long term probably a good idea although right now most if the demand would be to go to downtown and not to bypass it. Alameda to Little Tokyo has already been proposed for the northern portion of the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor. Of course they could go with one of the options along the river instead. See the "West Bank 3" option on page 10 www.pacificelectriccorridor.com/documents/PEROWBOARDS_may2012_FINAL.pdf
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on May 21, 2012 5:41:15 GMT -8
I think that's a great idea: The Blue Line, four-track system...a system within a bigger system! If it weren't because Union Pacific continues to utilize the two tracks next to the Blue Line, I'm sure that by now Metro would have made a motion to acquire them, unless it's something else that keeps them from it, like money and/or politics. What is UP using those tracks for? I would think that all the traffic to the harbor would be using the Alameda Corridor. I guess there are still some local deliveries along the Blue Line route?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 21, 2012 13:48:54 GMT -8
I think that's a great idea: The Blue Line, four-track system...a system within a bigger system! If it weren't because Union Pacific continues to utilize the two tracks next to the Blue Line, I'm sure that by now Metro would have made a motion to acquire them, unless it's something else that keeps them from it, like money and/or politics. What is UP using those tracks for? I would think that all the traffic to the harbor would be using the Alameda Corridor. I guess there are still some local deliveries along the Blue Line route? Yes, there are still local industries in Compton, Torrance, Gardena, South LA, etc that are still serviced by the UP, and that use the tracks that parallel the Blue Line.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 21, 2012 20:34:26 GMT -8
I was on the Blue Line once (1996?) when a long Union Pacific train was stopped on the tracks. People exiting Florence Station were jumping between coupled freight cars to get to the bus stop on the west side of the tracks, I should know, I was one of the many. I don't know how many more times this has happened since, but, this brings an improvement to mind, one that has been mentioned time and time again: grade separate Florence Av. under the Blue Line/Union Pacific tracks.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 21, 2012 23:05:34 GMT -8
I was on the Blue Line once (1996?) when a long Union Pacific train was stopped on the tracks. People exiting Florence Station were jumping between coupled freight cars to get to the bus stop on the west side of the tracks, I should know, I was one of the many. I don't know how many more times this has happened since, but, this brings an improvement to mind, one that has been mentioned time and time again: grade separate Florence Av. under the Blue Line/Union Pacific tracks. Yeah that's scary, but that was pre- Alameda Corridor, so the likelihood of that happening again is extremely rare. Most of the locals are not very long trains.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 22, 2012 12:56:24 GMT -8
I keep forgetting about that darn Alameda Corridor! Thank you Elson, that explains what's happening on the UP tracks that parallel the Blue Line. I still remember the people in the cars waiting closest to the tracks were livid. Thank God, there weren't any center islands in the middle of Florence Av. back then because cars were able to double back and get on to Compton Av. to Firestone Bl. to get through.
So I guess the existence of the Alameda Corridor negates the need to grade Florence Av. under all those tracks.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 23, 2012 3:56:43 GMT -8
Hmm? Are there any projections as to when the Blue Line will reach capacity? 1998.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 23, 2012 9:51:17 GMT -8
LOL, OK, are there any projections to when the Blue Line will max out? Or is it not expected to max out because of projects that are expected to increase freeway capacity and put more cars back on the street?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2012 11:51:30 GMT -8
You really have to look at capacity or "maxing out" in relative terms. The blue line could theoretically handle many more riders (at least double) without any increase in service if riding patterns were different. As it is the average rush hour rider goes a long distance and the reverse commute isn't packed, so it's fairly close to capacity at a relatively unimpressive ridership per mile.
If the blue line had more destinations and jobs en route ridership would increase although you'd need distance based fares to keep long beachers from filling the trains.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 11, 2012 11:57:41 GMT -8
They could always reconfigure the seating so that the majority of seats faced inwards. That should allow for more standing passengers and maybe even make more room for bicycles.
More buses on the Harbor Freeway might help relieve pressure on the Blue Line.
And as a fan of the TAP card, I totally support distance-based fares.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 12, 2012 14:04:03 GMT -8
They could always reconfigure the seating so that the majority of seats faced inwards. That should allow for more standing passengers and maybe even make more room for bicycles. I remember when my dad would take us to Santa Anita Park, RTD buses configured with seats facing in, would pass through the parking lot to pick up people and drop off at the entrance. So if inward seating can be accomplished on buses, why not on LRV's? I'm sure before that configuration is pursued, there would need to be a spike in ridership that holds as the new average. Looking at the ridership graph, it looks like ridership has been holding steady at 75k-80k riders. Would a new average of 100k-110k riders be enough for this configuration to be implemented?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 12, 2012 14:39:50 GMT -8
They could always reconfigure the seating so that the majority of seats faced inwards. That should allow for more standing passengers and maybe even make more room for bicycles. I remember when my dad would take us to Santa Anita Park, RTD buses configured with seats facing in, would pass through the parking lot to pick up people and drop off at the entrance. So if inward seating can be accomplished on buses, why not on LRV's? I'm sure before that configuration is pursued, there would need to be a spike in ridership that holds as the new average. Looking at the ridership graph, it looks like ridership has been holding steady at 75k-80k riders. Would a new average of 100k-110k riders be enough for this configuration to be implemented? Let me ask you - Would you be happy standing, and holding on to railing for the entire trip?
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 12, 2012 15:04:10 GMT -8
I remember when my dad would take us to Santa Anita Park, RTD buses configured with seats facing in, would pass through the parking lot to pick up people and drop off at the entrance. So if inward seating can be accomplished on buses, why not on LRV's? I'm sure before that configuration is pursued, there would need to be a spike in ridership that holds as the new average. Looking at the ridership graph, it looks like ridership has been holding steady at 75k-80k riders. Would a new average of 100k-110k riders be enough for this configuration to be implemented? Let me ask you - Would you be happy standing, and holding on to railing for the entire trip? You're asking the wrong question, essentially it doesn't matter because if that's the scenario the Blue Line has more than enough ridership it can handle & we'd be planning new parallel services.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 12, 2012 16:15:40 GMT -8
I remember when my dad would take us to Santa Anita Park, RTD buses configured with seats facing in, would pass through the parking lot to pick up people and drop off at the entrance. So if inward seating can be accomplished on buses, why not on LRV's? I'm sure before that configuration is pursued, there would need to be a spike in ridership that holds as the new average. Looking at the ridership graph, it looks like ridership has been holding steady at 75k-80k riders. Would a new average of 100k-110k riders be enough for this configuration to be implemented? Let me ask you - Would you be happy standing, and holding on to railing for the entire trip? Exactly. The blue line has plenty of choice riders and few of them would ride all the way from Long Beach without a decent chance at a seat.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 12, 2012 18:29:50 GMT -8
or, we don't turn the seats sideways and we reach full capacity that much sooner.
I would hope that Metro would look at alternatives to the Blue Line, either new rail lines or new BRT service before it reached the "stand from Long Beach to downtown" point. or reached the "wait for the next one because there's no room on the train which just arrived" point.
EDIT: or "Metro now hiring train pushers" point.
it could be one of those local cultural changes like adding TAP cards or locking gates, but inward facing seats are not a new idea.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 12, 2012 19:55:47 GMT -8
Let me ask you - Would you be happy standing, and holding on to railing for the entire trip? Exactly. The blue line has plenty of choice riders and few of them would ride all the way from Long Beach without a decent chance at a seat. Or even the transit-dependent, especially those who have to travel long distances. I don't think they would enjoy standing up for an entire hour.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 12, 2012 22:48:32 GMT -8
I'm reminded of the statement attributed to the streetcar tycoon of a hundred years ago, Charles T. Yerkes: "It's the straphangers who pay the dividends." He could get away with that attitude because the automobile was still a novelty. Nowadays, if the trains get too crowded, people who own cars will say, "I don't care what the price of gas is--at least in my car I have my own seat, and I don't have to worry about some nutcase or (to borrow a line from "Weird Al" Yankovic) 'smelly old bum...hasn't showered in a year' sitting next to me."
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 13, 2012 11:09:57 GMT -8
Eeks! So the moral of the story: don't mess with riders' seating or face the wrath!
Anyway, just for fun and in no particular order, what is Metro more likely to do to accommodate rising Blue Line ridership?
A. Increase head ways B. Eliminate all center platforms in favor of nearside platforms C. Augment existing platforms to accommodate 4-car trains D. Switch technology from LRT to HRT E. Establish LRT or HRT parallel service on another corridor (Pacific Bl./Long Beach Bl. as an example) F. Establish Metrolink, LRT, or HRT express service on the half of the ROW Metro currently doesn't own G. Other (inward seating, combinations of A-G, increase bus service, complete grade separation, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 13, 2012 11:12:36 GMT -8
Before I forget: Yes, I already know that this all requires incredible amounts of money that do not exist, so it's just for fun. Also, I'm sure there's an order in which Metro would pursue these if at all. Again, it's just for fun!
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 13, 2012 13:45:51 GMT -8
Eeks! So the moral of the story: don't mess with riders' seating or face the wrath! Anyway, just for fun and in no particular order, what is Metro more likely to do to accommodate rising Blue Line ridership? A. Increase head ways B. Eliminate all center platforms in favor of nearside platforms C. Augment existing platforms to accommodate 4-car trains D. Switch technology from LRT to HRT E. Establish LRT or HRT parallel service on another corridor (Pacific Bl./Long Beach Bl. as an example) F. Establish Metrolink, LRT, or HRT express service on the half of the ROW Metro currently doesn't own G. Other (inward seating, combinations of A-G, increase bus service, complete grade separation, etc.) The fastest and most cost-effective way is to increase headways. The absolute marker of hitting capacity is - theoretically - having 1 minute headways and still-overcrowded conditions. If trains were full and people had to wait 5 mins or less for the next one, I'm quite sure people will tolerate it. The other options incur large capital costs while causing service interruptions to a high-ridership line - especially B, C, D and F. Then you risk losing ridership ("Screw this, I'm gonna drive instead") and discover you're back to the pre-retrofit figures and everything would be all for naught.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 13, 2012 15:47:52 GMT -8
I see no point in switching from LRT to HRT technology on the blue line. HRT is really only less expensive to operate because of the grade separation which allows less trains to be used while still keeping high frequencies. If one were to do some number crunching from Metro's budget the Green Lines farebox recovery ratio is around 30% close the Red Lines 37% and higher than the Blue Lines 20 something % suggesting that LRT can be cheap to operate if there was more grade separation.
As for 4 car platforms I really do see that as a possibility. Most Metro LRT station have room to accommodate 4car trains. They are just a few that would see some type of disruption due to grade separation, or intersection closing in order to achieve the longer platforms.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jun 13, 2012 23:13:39 GMT -8
Nowadays, if the trains get too crowded, people who own cars will say, "I don't care what the price of gas is--at least in my car I have my own seat, and I don't have to worry about some nutcase or (to borrow a line from "Weird Al" Yankovic) 'smelly old bum...hasn't showered in a year' sitting next to me." Hey! Those are my sentiments! You must have overheard me muttering. We gave up on transit after many years and now drive nearly everywhere. Odor wasn't our primary motivation, but it has always been a factor. Its particularly bad on the Blue Line. The cost of gas isn't a factor. Our operating cost for the car is more than two transit passes - but the time saved is priceless (extra sleep!)
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 14, 2012 12:28:16 GMT -8
Awe, and I was really partial to E and G, complete grade separation (especially the Washington Bl. and Long Beach Bl. portions). D carries the heaviest price tag since it's not just rewiring for the third rail and taking down the overhead wires, but also reducing the size of all the current platforms (if the remaining width is even legal in the center platforms, otherwise B and C may have to implemented as well) and grade separating all street crossings and Washington Bl./Long Beach Bl. street running portions. The only positive outcome would be that the Expo Line would no longer be impeded by the Blue Line merging onto Flower St. The super upgraded Blue Line would have to be rerouted after Washington Bl. (Long Beach Bl. to Olympic Bl./9th St. to Spring St. to who knows...).
I'm not going to say I'm surprised that the "I'm taking my car" attitude is alive and well. This is Los Angeles and this type of transit was absent for far too long (1963 to 1990). Any Metro Line service disruption, lasting longer than a month, maybe two (2) and that's stretching it, would be a death blow. At that point it would make more sense to pave it over, remove the stations, and turn it into a dedicated diamond lane because convincing Angelinos that the Metro is back and better than before wouldn't fly.
I remember the polls conducted when gasoline was nearing $5/gal. and the results: people wouldn't mind paying between$5 and $6/gal., but would become frustrated paying between $6 and $7/gal. That was 10 years ago. I'm sure today the "wouldn't mind" price is $6-$7/gal. and the "frustrated" price is $8/gal. Can't wait to test the theory; we're heading in that direction. Meanwhile the petroleum industry is laughing all the way to the bank and congress is enjoying all the kickbacks that we've enabled the petroleum industry to hand out, like passing out cookies to children during play time in a day care center.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 14, 2012 15:01:15 GMT -8
Gateway makes some interesting points.
I'm sure that there are people who use the "the train is too smelly to ride" excuse, but I think we have to look beyond that.
I think gas price does in fact play a role; we see that when we compare the monthly ridership with the monthly uptick of gas prices on the charts. There's also the safety factor, as in my mother (who is no auto nut by any means) doesn't feel comfortable riding through South Los Angeles.
Last but not least, there's "it doesn't go where I need to go"... I've been trying to figure out the best way to get from the Convention Center to the USS Iowa in San Pedro during Anime Expo. TIME is more of a factor than usual because the convention has a schedule and my time is limited. The Blue Line is more frequent than the bus on the weekend, but it's not as fast when you add in the time needed for crossing Terminal Island.
So, I would stand by option G, as in a combination of improvements. I don't see switching from LRT to HRT as the most logical idea, because of the reasons already given. But if we reach New York, London or Tokyo-sized Metro Rail crowds, we may want to look into turning the seats inward, like they do in those places.
I would love to see better bus service and the possibility of alternate rail choices — either Metrolink or LRT on a route other than the Blue Line's existing route, such as the Harbor Sub or the Alameda Corridor or something. Fill up the "holes" on the Metro Rail map.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 18, 2012 11:10:22 GMT -8
Gateway makes some interesting points. Last but not least, there's "it doesn't go where I need to go"... I've been trying to figure out the best way to get from the Convention Center to the USS Iowa in San Pedro during Anime Expo. TIME is more of a factor than usual because the convention has a schedule and my time is limited. The Blue Line is more frequent than the bus on the weekend, but it's not as fast when you add in the time needed for crossing Terminal Island. You can take the Metro Express 450 from 7th/Figueroa to San Pedro-- takes about 30 minutes (weekdays only) or take the Silver Line to Artesia Transit Center to transfer to the 450 or take the Blue Line to Long Beach Transit Mall then transfer to the LADOT Commuter Express 142 (runs on weekends, $2, 26 mins) to complete your trip to San Pedro So excited for the USS Iowa!!
|
|