|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2009 16:08:32 GMT -8
The express train that they are considering has no stops between Union Station and LAX. They were quite clear on that. Also it wouldn't connect to the airport circulator train. They were working with LAX to get two stops inside the airport for that option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 22, 2009 16:38:45 GMT -8
Regional only - Metrolink type service using heavy EMU or DMU I don't know why this planning team is so in love with the idea of DMUs and EMUs. Metro recently released a report studying the use of DMUs on three existing Metrolink lines. This report concluded that it would be far more cost-effective to use existing Metrolink fleet because 1) new maintenance facilites would not required and 2) DMU trains would have to operate with a minimum of 12 axles (3 cars) to properly shunt tracks for proper signal operation, which is more cars than demand would require. Regardless, we need this to be a Metrolink line as soon as possible. When Crenshaw comes on line, the mid-corridor communites along Slauson will be VERY well served by LRT already. Further, these existing LRT lines would take people where they would want to go (South Bay, LAX, Downtown, or north toward Expo/Wilshire). The Harbor Sub as an LRT line would provide much slower and lengthier route to Downtown than these services would. The Harbor Sub corridor, however, CAN be incredibly useful if utilized as a fast link between the endpoints of the corridor (South Bay, LAX, and downtown), which are currently very poorly connected. I think the service should stop at Union Station, the Blue Line, the Harbor Transitway, Crenshaw, LAX, and whatever available South Bay stops. Only the essentials. 1-mile LRT/Harbor Transitway station radius map:  |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2009 18:03:56 GMT -8
My mistake. They did have regular diesel commuter trains as an option. I accidentally left that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2009 18:07:41 GMT -8
So far what makes the most sense to me is to extend the green line south and have everything between LAX and either San Pedro or Long Beach be light rail. The part from LAX to downtown would be commuter rail. They didn't really mention that as an option although they did say combining modes was a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 24, 2009 22:16:39 GMT -8
I was able to drive near a short portion of the Harbor Sub from Vermont to just before Crenshaw recently. It is amazing how wide a ROW this is and the benefit this would bring to these communities. However, the grade crossings are going to be tricky because of the angles and its location.
I also drove the other day up Crenshaw and my basic assessment is that this is going to be a difficult line to build to say the least. Crenshaw has a very suburban feel because it is so wide and car friendly (definately not pedestrian) and they have the parking lanes/areas on the side, which I assume will be gone as the light rail is built here. The area right around the Leimert split off is much more pedestrian friendly, but it is also narrower and I don't see how you are going to get light rail to fit in here easily (but it is a very short stretch of Crenshaw).
I just was in Minneapolis this week for work. They have a pretty new line that is quite impressive looking that runs from the Mall of America and airport into Downtown. It seems to be performing quite well as it has about a 25% higher ridership than the Gold Line, but is a couple of miles shorter. That is pretty impressive for a city far less dense than Los Angeles.
It would be nice if we could have a direct airport to Downtown rail connection as well, which intrigues me with the Harbor Sub. I'd like to see their cost estimates for it (I imagine much less than Crenshaw on a per mile basis due to the wide ROW, but we'll see).
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 23, 2009 16:51:10 GMT -8
Metro (I think) is building something on the Harbor Subdivision ROW just west of the blue line station at Slauson. It's almost right in the middle. I suppose that there could possibly be room to have any eventual trains travel on either side of the structure, but I was surprised to see it there considering the plans for that ROW. It's a concrete building. It could be a new substation, but if so it's much larger than the existing ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Oct 27, 2009 17:28:25 GMT -8
Anyone know what's going on with the AA?
I just realized these meetings happened last week.
October 19, 2009, 11am-1pm
Metropolitan Water District, Room 2-145
700 N Alameda St
Los Angeles, CA
October 19, 2009, 6-8pm
Lawndale Community Center Annex
14616 ½ Grevillea Av
Lawndale, CA
October 20, 2009, 6-8pm
Carson Community Center
801 E Carson St
Carson, CA
October 21, 2009, 6-8pm
Jackie Robinson Academy Auditorium
2750 Pine Av
Long Beach, CA
October 22 2009, 6-8pm
Hyde Park-Miriam Matthews Library
2205 Florence Av
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Nov 8, 2009 19:58:54 GMT -8
Surprised no one has posted this... Metro posted the update of the AA for HS recently... presentation display boards here: www.metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/news_info.htmBasically, extension to South Bay Galleria is funded priority. Then, if they can get funding, they're looking to extend light rail from blue to Crenshaw and commuter rail from Union Station to near San Pedro Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Nov 8, 2009 21:13:16 GMT -8
From talking to the staff at the meeting the way they see things probably going are:
1st phase:
Extend south to Torrance RTC (with help of state/federal money -- Measure R has money to cover the extension to the Redondo Beach RTC at the South Bay Galleria)
2nd Phase:
LRT from Blue Line Slauson Station to LAX/Crenshaw Line.
3rd Phase:
Torrance RTC to Blue line Willow Station (although if pressure persists the extension could go to San Pedro)
4th Phase:
Commuter Rail from Union Station to LAX (seen as only viable after the California High Speed Rail system goes to Union Station)
So basically if the southern extension ends up at Blue Line Willow Station we'll basically have our first loop route, well okay, semi-circle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 21:51:31 GMT -8
From talking to the staff at the meeting the way they see things probably going are: 1st phase: Extend south to Torrance RTC (with help of state/federal money -- Measure R has money to cover the extension to the Redondo Beach RTC at the South Bay Galleria) 2nd Phase: LRT from Blue Line Slauson Station to LAX/Crenshaw Line. 3rd Phase: Torrance RTC to Blue line Willow Station (although if pressure persists the extension could go to San Pedro) 4th Phase: Commuter Rail from Union Station to LAX (seen as only viable after the California High Speed Rail system goes to Union Station) So basically if the southern extension ends up at Blue Line Willow Station we'll basically have our first loop route, well okay, semi-circle. Sounds very exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 22:20:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 9, 2009 0:19:57 GMT -8
The staging (Redondo to Torrance first, then Crenshaw to Blue Line, then Torrance to Long Beach) seems reasonable, and light rail would be a good choice for this corridor, especially if the stations are designed to allow limited-stop ("Metrolink") EMU service. I am especially glad to hear that Metro is thinking about how the California High-Speed Rail system will change transit usage. However, I can't help but feel that Long Beach is being left out in the current long-range plan. According to census maps, central long beach (between PCH and Broadway, from the River to about Redondo) has the highest population density in the county, outside of central LA. See: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flewis.spa.ucla.edu%2FGIScontest%2FOsgoogEtAl_LANYDensity_report.pdf&ei=9sf3SpKJJpDKsQOvnL20CQ&usg=AFQjCNG1qit-svHQV9fowg-0YHbxWNe2kw&sig2=bBWxrL2H0QvQnyvAc_fHpw and also : www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.lsc.gov%2Fmapping%2Fsocal%2Fca00_dst_1_v2.pdf&ei=Pcj3SsalDIvQtAPZ98EO&usg=AFQjCNEcHSwBLp89KlTo9VL66N-DErGvFg&sig2=LNEVKQnJD0v3qbF9NGnjAwThere are also substantial job and entertainment destinations downtown, in Belmont Shore and at CSU Long Beach. Now that Long Beach Transit (LBT) offers free passes to CSU students, the buses heading there are packed all day long. The Blue Line is also very successful, despite having a slow street-running alignment through most of the city. A surface light rail line on PCH, Anaheim, 7th or Broadway would be heavily used. With no less than 14 east-west LBT bus lines, and a few Metro and OCTA buses, I believe there are are over 32 buses per hour going east and west, in a less than 2 mile wide corridor centered on 7th street. If they are a little over half full, that may be almost 1000 passengers per hour in each direction, and probably 30,000 per day (out of about 100,000 total system weekday riders in Long Beach), competitive with any of LA's current light rail lines on a per-mile basis. An east-west light rail line might be able to get 50,000 weekday trips in Long Beach alone. Metro should plan for the "Harbor Subdivision" line to continue east across Long Beach, all the way to the major destination of the VA hospital and CSU Long Beach. If there is no way to get that line down south of Willow, then the trains could follow the Blue Line route south, before turning east. This 5 mile long route, with possibly 10,000 passengers per mile, might qualify for New Starts funding, when connected to the South Bay and the Blue Line, and will certainly create many new transit users in Long Beach and the rest of the county. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Nov 9, 2009 1:14:31 GMT -8
The Harbor Sub staff ruled out PCH because the impacts of adding light rail would be too great (not enough space, etc).
Interfacing with the Blue Line was ruled out because Metro thought it would impact operations too greatly. This is why the LRT option does not use the Blue Line tracks at Slauson and does not go further than Willow Station. Essentially the Blue Line would need a lot of work before any more interfacing were to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 9, 2009 1:19:02 GMT -8
Even though Long Beach has a large population, greater density and better ridership potential, I don't want to ignore San Pedro. The city of Los Angeles has been encouraging new development there, and the old neighborhoods near the harbor are beautify and good for walking. But the Harbor busway is a big disappointment, with poorly advertised and poorly coordinated service, most of which stops before reaching San Pedro. A Vermont HRT would be great, but is a long way off, and would still take about 55 minutes to Metro Center (Actually, 40 minutes to Expo/Vermont, then 15 minutes to get downtown)
I know it would be tough to take back lanes on the 110 even if they are currently for buses, but is there any chance of regional rail with EMU technology on the current alignment? With 2 miles between most stations and full grade separation, 110 mph operation should be possible (as with the main Metrolink lines after the CAHSR project builds us some grade separations and sound walls). It would be better to build new stations outside of the freeway median as well, since who wants to wait for a train in the middle of a dirty freeway? But adding glass sound walls would make a huge difference (we can try it out on the Green Line, to start).
The current transitway buses take 60 minutes to travel 23 miles from central San Pedro to Metro Center. I calculate* a full-speed train with 9 stations (currently existing) at PCH, Carson, Artesia, Rosecrans, Green Line, Manchester, Slauson, Expo and Metro Center (last leg via Expo/Blue line) would take 28 minutes end-to-end, averaging 85 miles per hour on the freeway and 20 mph on the street-running portion between stations. If the regional connector is complete, Union Station would be another 4 minutes away. That's about the same as driving time without traffic, and MUCH faster than even the carpool lanes at rush hour.
San Pedro itself would get two stations, at 6th street and 22nd street, either along the waterfront or on Gaffey. Trains could be run every 15 minutes with only 5 drivers and trains, since the round-trip would be about an hour. In comparison, Long Beach transit often needs 7 buses to maintain 15 minute headways on 8 mile long bus routes. Fast trains save money!
Later, the same stations could be used for the southern terminus of the Vermont line. I think a transfer to the Harbor Subdivision line would be better than a split route as suggested in the Metro document, due to better train frequencies.
(Technical: speed calculations based on 2 mph/second acceleration (about the same as 1 meter/second) to 110 mph in just under 1 minute and the same rate for braking, with 20 seconds stopped at each station. This means each station stop adds 20 second stopped plus 30 seconds delay while braking and 30 seconds delay for acceleration, for a total 80 second delay per station, 12 minutes total delay. Of course, this requires high-quality EMU trains, not light rail vehicles designed for 55 mph operation. The freeway portion is 20 miles and takes 11 minutes at 110 mph. The 2 mile street level / tunnel portion in Los Angeles takes about 5 minutes conservatively, with an average speed of 25 mph. So, 11 + 12 + 5 = 28 minutes. )
(If you want it to go faster, 125 mph operation, a third passing track at stations, a right-of-way thru downtown along 110 and 101, and only 3 intermediate stops (at Expo Line, Harbor Subd, and Green Line) will get you all the way to Union Station in about 17 minutes... or to San Francisco in just under 3 hours.)
Of course, if we give San Pedro such great, speedy access, we will have to send fast trains down the 105/Green Line to the South Bay and steal part of 405 and 710 to get to Long Beach... and then, what about the 10 to Culver City and Santa Monica? Anyone want to get from Union Station to the Pier in 17 minutes (with 6 stops)?
I should do a map of a complete regional rail system. Building stations and flyovers next to the freeways would be expensive, but light rail is not fast enough for every trip. The areas South and West of the 5 will be getting jealous for Metrolink and HSR, once Anaheim and Burbank have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 9, 2009 2:23:31 GMT -8
In the South LA portion not too many people like the idea of Metrolink or any commuter rail service on the corridor, speeding through without providing the community access to transit service. This isn't Glendale or Orange County or some obscure right-of-way. It's a major east-west corridor in South LA. The presentation shows significant transit ridership for the light rail alternative even with such a short segment. I'm not at all surprised, given the high transit dependency along the corridor. If anything I'm surprised the number is that low. Light rail to the greatest extent grade separated to allow express tracks from Union Station to LAX is what should be planned for the portion between the Blue Line and Crenshaw. Unfortunately, there is no funding for any of it. Measure R only funds the sections from the Green Line terminus to the South Bay Galleria. And in that respect the project is a major disappointment. It should go down Hawthorne Blvd instead of through the middle of low-density housing. It is my hope that part of the project is added to the Crenshaw Line, so they can be built simultaneously. Another major issue is the shared tracks portion of the Crenshaw Line. We're walking into another Expo-Crenshaw and Blue-Expo mess, where early on people simply forgot to count the number of trains to determine the necessity of grade separation. It's all the more reason to extend the grade separated sections on the Harbor Subdivision portion of the Crenshaw Line: a) Extending the Hyde Park underpass to west of Redondo b) Beginning the La Cienega overpass 700 feet sooner to grade separate Oak c) Connecting the La Cienega overpass to the Manchester overpass to grade separate Hindry (1300 feet) d) Closing Cedar and building a driveway to the properties affected to Oak e) Grade separating Arbor Vitae Based on their estimates (which I have been terribly critical of: b) is around 3-5 million more c) is around 20 million more (primarily because it creates an aerial station) d) is cost neutral e) 13 million more a) is the largest mystery (don't know what's under those tracks) but it's likely close to 70-100 million (requires an open cut station like Memorial Park). jeisenbe: See: www.GetLAMoving.com |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 9, 2009 9:01:02 GMT -8
Not to mention Long Beach Airport which serves nearly three million passengers per year and located between the study endpoint and CSULB.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 9, 2009 18:52:55 GMT -8
Thanks for the updates stuckintraffic and ieko!
I love that map as well. Still living in Carson I don't see that extension from Avalon to the blue line as very likely. Not much room for street running and not worth the expense of grade separation for most likely low ridership.
And Damien I agree about Metrolink. Metro had indicated that the Union Station to LAX commuter train would most likely be an express service and IIRC completely grade separated. Still how can they expect to have south la burdened by the train without any benefits? that's a non-starter IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 9, 2009 19:55:42 GMT -8
With total grade separation in the portion between Union Station and LAX (to control timing) and a 3rd pass-through track at local stations, I imagine Metro can, albeit it with some challenge implement a Union Station to LAX express train using light rail vehicles slightly modified for holding luggage. A possible substantial operational cost reduction would come from having this subset of LRVs operate driverless like JFK's AirTrain. It should have a least two or three stops.
Terminal access allows the project to be funded via a fee on airplane tickets.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 1, 2010 10:06:02 GMT -8
At this point, this is now old news (December 2009). But I'll post it anyway. The Metro Board has approved the alternatives analysis report for the Harbor Subdivision. In a nutshell: the AA divides potential Harbor Sub projects into three priority levels. Top priority is a Green Line extension south to the future Torrance Regional Transit Center. No other Harbor Sub projects will be considered until "additional funding is available and infrastructure improvements as part of other projects (such as the California High Speed Train and the Caltrans 'Run-Through Tracks') are put in place." With this board action, the project - now renamed South Bay Green Line Extension - has moved into the Draft EIS/R stage. (Discussion of the South Bay Green Line Extension continues on the new "South Bay Green Line Extension - DEIR Process" thread.) |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 9:58:03 GMT -8
We need to connect this line with the 405 Corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 25, 2010 10:41:30 GMT -8
I notice this project has been removed from Metro's website. I hope that isn't ominous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 25, 2010 10:52:19 GMT -8
I notice this project has been removed from Metro's website. I hope that isn't ominous. That's not surprising, given that they already issued their report and gave their recommendations on how to proceed (which they are following in the form of the South Bay Green Line Extension project). |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 25, 2010 11:02:35 GMT -8
The portion of Harbor subdivsion between Crenshaw Blvd and Downtown LA is eliminated from any further consideration for any transit use, at least for now.
The portion from Crenshaw to LAX will be part of Crenshaw corridor study.
The portion from El Segundo to Torrance will be part of "Green" Line South Bay study.
The portion from Torrance to Long Beach is eliminated from consideration, at least for now (maybe Zev and MRT will revive it).
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 25, 2010 11:55:42 GMT -8
Well, this is just a guess, but if I were the MTA, I wouldn't want to get my hands into too many projects at one time.
The Crenshaw Line will effectively hog that one section of the Harbor Sub, and we never really knew if there was room for more than one rail line in that stretch of the corridor.
Also, the Crenshaw Line had powerful political support. It also somewhat replicates the Harbor Sub's role of "faster route from LAX to downtown," although not quite as efficiently.
From a personal point of view, the Torrance branch of the Green Line will do more for me than the Harbor Sub would have. It give the South Bay something to root for, transit-wise.
I'm hoping that the rest of the Harbor Sub isn't dead, just resting [EDIT: And not in the "Monty Python" sense]. But what we are getting is quite good in and of itself. Carry on, Metro.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 25, 2010 12:49:00 GMT -8
The Harbor Sub is not dead but it is not being planned right now. I would put it under "The Dream" unless some funding or planning for that takes place. The Alternatives Analysis was completed almost a year ago. In that report, Metro staff removed all options for the current project from consideration, except for a Green Line extension to Torrance. Metro then renamed the project "South Bay Green Line Extension". So it is no surprise to me that they removed the redundant webpage. The information now resides here. BTW, for those who want to participate, Metro is right now holding a series of four community meetings for the South Bay Green Line Extension. Two meetings are scheduled for this week: Monday, October 25, 2010, 6-8 PM
North Redondo Senior Center, Perry Park
2308 Rockefeller Lane
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Served by Metro Line 130 and Torrance Transit Line 8.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6-8 PM
Flight Path Learning Center
6661 West Imperial Highway
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Served by Beach City Transit Line 109. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 25, 2010 14:40:12 GMT -8
I still think the Harbor Subdivision has potential as a Metrolink Commuter rail line from the Southbay to downtown, but that's just me. But, it is probably just part of "the Dream" at this point.
Thanks for filling me on what happened after the AA.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 25, 2010 15:20:31 GMT -8
I don't know if Metrolink would be the perfect operator for such a service — they may not have the funds or the equipment to do so — but certainly in our two-tier "Metro for urban rail, Metrolink for suburban and interurban service", Metrolink would be the logical choice.
But this is still just a dream, at least until Cal HSR forces Metrolink to make changes. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 26, 2010 1:19:40 GMT -8
Eh, I think that really wouldn't make a lot of sense since the Silver Line is more direct. All Metro really needs to do is make 445 part of the Silver Line. I've been riding the service a lot lately and have noticed that people are starting to find the service. I remember passing harbor transitway stations and never picking anyone one up, now it's not unusual to see people getting on and off at Rosecrans and the through service to El Monte really helps the efficiency when you're in downtown.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 26, 2010 11:20:18 GMT -8
I still think the Harbor Subdivision has potential as a Metrolink Commuter rail line from the Southbay to downtown, but that's just me. But, it is probably just part of "the Dream" at this point. Thanks for filling me on what happened after the AA. I think the Crenshaw line (light rail) pretty much eliminates all future possibility of Metrolink type express service from LAX to Downtown. The best we can hope for now is that the rest of northern part of Harbor Subdivision gets revived with a 405 line (so it will run from Union Station to SFV via LAX and UCLA). |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 26, 2010 13:39:14 GMT -8
I think the Crenshaw line (light rail) pretty much eliminates all future possibility of Metrolink type express service from LAX to Downtown. The best we can hope for now is that the rest of northern part of Harbor Subdivision gets revived with a 405 line (so it will run from Union Station to SFV via LAX and UCLA). Not true. The Crenshaw Corridor project will build two LRT tracks from the Century Freeway to Crenshaw Blvd. in the Harbor Subdivision ROW and leave one BNSF freight track intact, which a Metrolink service would then utilize. A passage from the Harbor Subdivision AA Report: The Crenshaw Transit Corridor utilizes the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Crenshaw Boulevard to the Aviation/LAX Metro Green Line station. Throughout this portion of the Corridor, LRT-compatible [Harbor Sub Regional] modal options would utilize the Crenshaw Transit Corridor infrastructure. Regardless of whether BRT or LRT is chosen as the [Crenshaw] LPA and constructed along the Crenshaw Corridor, freight-compatible [Harbor Sub Regional] modal options would utilize the freight track adjacent to the BRT busway or LRT tracks. |
|
