|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 26, 2010 15:41:12 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but if you wanna put the Harbor Subdivision in The Dream section, then you must consider putting the Silver Line, Vermont Corridor, and Yellow Line in that category as well. 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). An expo-crenshaw tie-in isn't nearly as effective as DT-LAX metrolink route, and as Justin pointed out, it's still possible. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 26, 2010 15:48:23 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. The Silver Line BRT, in my opinion, should eventually be split into two different corridors: 1.SGV portion becomes Red Line extension via El Monte Busway and Garvey. 2.South LA portion becomes a Metrolink extension. It could connect to the Commuter Rail System by using the Expo Line ROW east of the 110, and possibly (to preserve much of the current Silver Line BRT ridership) head to Union Station and follow the San Bernardino Metrolink route that goes to El Monte Station. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 27, 2010 7:15:14 GMT -8
(crossposted on Green Line) Last night, I went to meeting 4/4 of the latest set of South Bay Extension meetings. I want to clarify some of my previous statements on the current state of this project. There are four options for this project: - No Build
- TSM (enhanced bus service)
- 4.6-mile light rail extension from the Green Line terminus to Torrance RTC
- 8.6-mile "freight track" line from Century/Aviation (LAX) to Torrance RTC, using Metrolink or Self-Propelled vehicles.
At yesterday's small meeting (~40 people), most support was for the Green Line extension (LRT), although there was also support for keeping the freight track open to allow future Metrolink service. There was also quite a bit of concern from people owning homes near the tracks that their property values would drop. One guy was very angry and demanded dollar-for-dollar compensation for the drop in his home value (which staff politely told him would not happen). The next set of meetings will be in next spring. In the meantime, staff will be posting the presentations from this meeting series online. Staff expects to complete the DEIR around a year from now. All the latest is here. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 27, 2010 16:52:36 GMT -8
I'm not sure why Metro isn't pushing hard for a Metrolink (and maybe eventually LRT) Harbor Subdivision route. Such a corridor from Downtown to LAX would be WAAAAYYY more effective than a commute via the Expo-Crenshaw corridors.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 10:45:12 GMT -8
Metro isn't Metrolink.
And it's not entirely certain Metrolink would want to take on another rail line at this point, when they don't appear to have the cash to make needed improvements to the lines they already have. Or upgrade to TAP. Or add new rolling stock.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind a Metrolink line from downtown to the South Bay. But, I'm not entirely convinced that it would be better than the light rail line. Metrolink would provide a one-seat express ride from Torrance to downtown, but light rail would provide more stations, and more opportunities for potential riders — not everyone is headed downtown.
We probably need both, but if its one or the other, conventional wisdom says local trumps express.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 28, 2010 15:01:39 GMT -8
And it's not entirely certain Metrolink would want to take on another rail line at this point, when they don't appear to have the cash to make needed improvements to the lines they already have. Or upgrade to TAP. Or add new rolling stock. Metrolink is poorly funded. A line from Downtown to LAX would be HUGE. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 28, 2010 16:10:31 GMT -8
The question is what the headways would be with a Metrolink LAX service. Metrolink has really only run commuter services up to this point, only a handful of peak time trains on most lines, perhaps with a couple reverse commute services. Despite this generally poor level of service, they've had to make even further cuts recently because of their budget not being able to cover operating costs. Unless fares to or from the airport were sufficient to cover operational expenses, we can expect a turf war between the Metrolink representatives from each county (who will want to avoid cuts to their own service) and any airport service advocates on the board. The current fare from Northridge is $8, which doesn't cover operational costs, so we might expect that a LAX ride (maybe a little bit shorter) would cost at least $15 (assuming a farebox recovery ratio of just over 50% for the current system, and a similar level of demand regardless of the higher price) in order to ensure self sustainability and therefore frequent headways. Now if LAWA, CAHSR, the city, or the county wanted to pump some extra funds in to subsidise the operational costs of a Metrolink connection, that changes things, but they would really need to come up with a financial structure that would ensure frequent service without Riverside or San Bernardino trying to siphon those funds for more inland service.
I'm not sure what demand is like at $15, but maybe with a more compelling destination they would be able to fill the trains and charge each passenger less.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 19:00:58 GMT -8
Yeah, I was just thinking. Airport employees don't necessarily live downtown, they would want to live closer to the airport. For that sort of commute, the Green Line or the Crenshaw Line would be better, because of station locations.
For an LAX Express sort of operation though.... airlines don't run on 9 to 5 schedules. Planes come in and out at all times of day, late at night and early in the morning, often in clumps so the airport can be oddly quiet and then really crowded at times.
What we would need would be something with the Green Line's frequency, but with relatively few stops. That's not something that Metrolink is designed to handle right now.
The Flyaway Bus is operated by LAWA. LAWA would probably want to be involved with any sort of LAX Express or Flyaway Train. This might not even be Metrolink, maybe even airport-friendly equipment (luggage racks).
As for ticket prices... I don't know. Express services are often higher priced than usual, but given Metrolink prices for a similar distance, it might not make sense to charge more.
None of these are insurmountable obstacles, of course, as there are similar services in Europe and Japan. As always, the biggest problem is funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 28, 2010 20:49:10 GMT -8
Metro isn't Metrolink. And it's not entirely certain Metrolink would want to take on another rail line at this point, when they don't appear to have the cash to make needed improvements to the lines they already have. Or upgrade to TAP. Or add new rolling stock. Metrolink is a joint powers authority that reports to its five member county transportation agencies. Each county gets from Metrolink whatever it pays for. For example, Ventura County has a very limited revenue stream (w/o a county transportation sales tax) and therefore gets very limited Metrolink service. Orange County, on the other hand, has chipped in a hefty sum of money for Metrolink to start running 30-minute service in Orange County. My point is that if Metro wanted to start Metrolink service from Union Station to LAX and had the money to do it, Metrolink would run it. Each county sets policy; Metrolink handles the operations. And now, my two cents: Metrolink service from Union Station to LAX (and perhaps the South Bay) is an obvious necessity. The ROW is there and has tracks (although the tracks do need some improvements). The only piece of new infrastructure that we need to start such service is a track connection from the Harbor Sub to Metrolink's River Sub West Bank Line. This link is so important that even CA HSR planners considered running service from Union Station to LAX on the Harbor Subdivision. (They eventually concluded that the corridor would best be served by regional rail.) |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 29, 2010 14:30:07 GMT -8
The link from Union Station to LAX is important. I would love to see some sort of commuter train on that route.
Cal HSR to LAX would also be awesome. Instead of Metrolink trains to LAX, you would have Cal HSR trains. Too bad they nixed that idea.
My point is, it doesn't have to be Metrolink-brand commuter rail. LAWA is already in the business of bringing LAX passengers to Union Station with the Flyaway Bus. I'm guessing they would want part of an LAX train.
If Metrolink is that important, it could be a Metrolink/LAWA joint operation. But I don't see why Metrolink has to be involved at all.
Or why Metrolink would have to be involved from the get-go. We have no trouble creating agencies to construct rail lines, which then hand operations over to Metro. Or even agencies such as Foothill Transit, which took over operations and built its own identity.
The Harbor Sub isn't really ready for Metrolink to come in and start sending trains down there anyways. And I would think we would want different trains than the ones that Metrolink currently runs (or even the Rotem trains). Something like a DMU with airport-sized luggage racks, maybe. And there is finding funding, of course.
Create an agency with the job of working with LAWA, purchasing equipment, fixing the tracks, lobbying for cash, and keep it separate from Metrolink, which has enough to deal with without adding LAX to its plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 30, 2010 10:16:45 GMT -8
I just got back from a trip to Darmstadt, Germany. I took a train from Frankfurt to Darmstadt, which is probably about a 20 mile trip, not unlike what Union Station to LAX might be. The trip was via the RB (Regional Bahn) service.
The RB follows the same route that the S-Bahn (think light rail) follows, but skips almost all the stops. The train stopped only once between Frankfurt and Darmstadt, and covered the trip in 18 minutes. The train itself was EMU, kind of like the line that Denver is building between the airport and downtown. I would guess the train could run 70-80mph. You would think that when the 30-10 projects get either well under way, or even completed, that a fast link like this from the airport to Union Station would be a next logical step. Especially if the ROW is there and it's just a matter of building the remaining infrastructure.
I see it as a dedicated service, point to point, Union Station to LAX. Minimal stops in between. Those more familiar with the corridor could probably fill in the other stops should they be warranted.
When I arrived in Frankfurt I took light rail (S9) from the airport to the main train station in Frankfurt. That was only 2 short stops down the line. If the people mover services the airport, and this new Harbor Line gets from the Aviation/Century station to Union Station, it would almost be an equivalent trip to what I just took. LAX to the main train station.
It's funny too, there is a bus that goes directly from the airport to the Darmstadt train station. The service is hourly though, and I just missed the bus which is why I took the train. The direct bus takes 35 minutes.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 18, 2011 14:59:53 GMT -8
I see it as a dedicated service, point to point, Union Station to LAX. Minimal stops in between. Those more familiar with the corridor could probably fill in the other stops should they be warranted. It is an idea I like. It's still a transit dream of mine to have a one-seat rail ride from LAX to/from Union Station |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 19, 2011 10:27:55 GMT -8
I see it as a dedicated service, point to point, Union Station to LAX. Minimal stops in between. Those more familiar with the corridor could probably fill in the other stops should they be warranted. It is an idea I like. It's still a transit dream of mine to have a one-seat rail ride from LAX to/from Union Station Like the FlyAway? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 19, 2011 12:03:20 GMT -8
It is an idea I like. It's still a transit dream of mine to have a one-seat rail ride from LAX to/from Union Station Like the FlyAway? Last time I checked that wasn't a rail ride. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 19, 2011 14:29:58 GMT -8
Last time I checked that wasn't a rail ride. No disrespect sir, I meant like a nonstop ride that visits at all terminal. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 19, 2011 14:51:09 GMT -8
basically, you're saying convert the Union Station FlyAway to rail.
I wouldn't mind seeing that either myself, but realistically the political will is behind extending the Green Line, bringing the Crenshaw Line to the airport and adding the peoplemover.
I actually also fully support the Green/ Crenshaw/ peoplemover as I think these things would be useful as well.
unfortunately, once the Crenshaw Line is finished, one of the best ways of getting a direct, nonstop train from Union Station to LAX will be cut off or at the very least complicated by the existence of the Crenshaw Line effectively hogging the Harbor Sub.
I'm not sure what other possibilities would be available... probably building a whole new line, maybe following the freeways...
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 20, 2011 12:21:16 GMT -8
Honestly, I think a central Central/Aviation station would be better than having a direct LAUS-LAX train connection (i.e. Picadilly Expres in London).
The people mover from LAX will connect people to Century/Aviation station, where trains will be going to South Bay (extended to Long Beach via Green Line south 1 day), Norwalk, Santa Monica (hopefully 1 day), West Hollywood, Hollywood, and Wilshire Corridor/West LA. I think that would be better than going to Union Station and connecting to other trains. Century/Aviation could one day be a massive South Bay/LAX "Union Station".
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 21, 2011 7:57:06 GMT -8
Unfortunately, once the Crenshaw Line is finished, one of the best ways of getting a direct, nonstop train from Union Station to LAX will be cut off or at the very least complicated by the existence of the Crenshaw Line effectively hogging the Harbor Sub. The Harbor Subdivision right-of-way is 60 to 100 feet wide. Even 60 feet should be enough for 3 tracks (2 for light rail, 1 for express regional trains; e.g. LAX to Union Station). There are a couple of exceptions where the right-of-way narrows to as little as 30 feet, because half of the former right-of-way was sold off: maps.google.com/maps?msid=209582850025375035802.0004ab05138b95bb44272&msa=0&ll=33.976693,-118.333008&spn=0.000668,0.001206&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6 maps.google.com/maps?msid=209582850025375035802.0004ab05138b95bb44272&msa=0&ll=33.975989,-118.334671&spn=0.001337,0.002411&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6 maps.google.com/maps?msid=209582850025375035802.0004ab05138b95bb44272&msa=0&ll=33.967251,-118.351433&spn=0.000668,0.001206&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6 But if a few commercial and industrial buildings can be acquired at these spots, it should be possible to have a third track the whole way to Crenshaw. Northeast of Crenshaw there is plenty of room for 2 tracks just for regional or express trains, though only 1 track would be needed except for a couple miles in the middle of the line. The route to LA Union Station is 15 miles, so it also might be possible to run service every 30 minutes with only one train and one track, if the top speed is 90 mph or more, and there are no intermediate stations or slow zones, allowing the train to make the trip in under 13 minutes. More realistically, we could have regional service with stops at the Blue Line, Harbor Freeway, and the three Crenshaw line stations that share the route. Using Stadler DMUs (top speed 90 mph, accelerate to 75 mph in 35 seconds), and limiting top speed to 55 mph in the shared section, the regional trains could go from LAX to Union Station in about 25 minutes. This would be good for ever service every 30 minutes with two trains, and two tracks (for passing) would only be needed from Vermont to Crenshaw. To the west, the regional trains could easily share the two light rail tracks. If we later want regional rail service to Torrance or San Pedro, it would be nice to have the third track between LAX and Crenshaw, so a couple stations can be skipped, but this only saves 3 or 4 minutes out of a 40 or 50 minute trip. Maps of harbor subdivision alternatives: maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=209582850025375035802.0004ab05138b95bb44272&msa=0&ll=33.998027,-118.306274&spn=0.163949,0.308647 Previous Metro alternatives analysis, scroll down to page 6 for map: www.metro.net/projects_studies/harbor_subdivision/images/AA_study/10-Draft-Final-AA-Comparative-Analysis-of-AA-Altern.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 21, 2011 8:29:20 GMT -8
I like the idea of a direct connection, but building express trains without parallel local service probably isn't the best idea given our dearth of rail transit. The minimum starting point would be something like jeisenbe described with connections at the blue line, Harbor freeway, and at least one of the three Crenshaw stations. Of course more connections would be even better. I still think that light rail would be the way to go with tracks down Alameda over to the blue line (where new tracks would be added) and then down Slauson to the Crenshaw line. Express or metrolink type service would come at some point after that, if and when HSR is running. For now if fliers want metrolink style service to LAUS, fly into Burbank.  |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Sept 1, 2011 7:59:12 GMT -8
I spoke to a gentleman who is one of the lead planners of the Green Line Extension to Torrance, he says that the Harbor Subdivision ROW is about 100 feet wide. That's certainly wide enough to fit a double track light rail line as well as to double track the existing line.
Now that I've done my homework on this ROW I can see the possibility of the Harbor Subdivision with a direct connection via MetroLink during peak hours to the same Century/Aviation area as the Crenshaw Line with a required connection to an LAX automated people mover for fliers and very likely for a significantly higher cost over a FlyAway for the amount of capital required to double track and install bridges and under crossings.
This is not all this line could have potential for, a super express to the airport probably could not sustain this line, Commuter Express type bus service radiating north and west to LAX and Westside (or any South Bay) job centers could be a boon for crosstown/cross county peak hour travel. Connections to job centers is ultimately what can persuade politics to swing the pendulum for improved transit connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 1, 2011 17:44:13 GMT -8
I still think that light rail would be the way to go with tracks down Alameda over to the blue line (where new tracks would be added) and then down Slauson to the Crenshaw line. Express or metrolink type service would come at some point after that, if and when HSR is running. For now if fliers want metrolink style service to LAUS, fly into Burbank. I like Burbank Airport and I like that Metrolink serves that airport (although I do think that even in that capacity it could be more frequent). However, if you compare the number of flights, number of destinations and just the overall size of Burbank vs. LAX (more airline terminals means more check-in desks, more employees commuting to work), it's obvious that LAX is the grand prize  That said, I think that as long as we're still in the brainstorming phase (and I think that's where we seem to be on this idea), we can break free from the "light rail vs. commuter train" thinking that Los Angeles has typically been stuck with. It's understandable, given that Metro Rail and Metrolink are separated by governing body, type of service, and available equipment. However, that separation is not necessarily needed, especially in a case like this. I think that there is room in the L.A. rail transit realm for express service. LAX is set to be served by local light rail service through the Green and Crenshaw lines, and the Westside will get local light rail service through the Expo Line (and eventually through the Purple Line). But there are people who have been asking about quicker service. If there is room on the Harbor Sub for three tracks, if not four tracks, then there could be the possibility of three electrified tracks, with light rail vehicles running in an "Express LAX" capacity, but also with semi-local service, linking the Harbor Sub with the Harbor Freeway Busway, the Blue Line, etc. Trains could operate under the Metrolink banner with Metrolink pricing. Imagine Breda or Siemens LRVs painted in Metrolink colors ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 13, 2011 0:10:09 GMT -8
Important new development: Crenshaw Corridor project staff have found a way to cut their project costs: rather than relocating the existing Harbor Subdivision tracks next to the new light rail tracks as previously planned, they propose simply eliminating them from the corridor. The board motion proposes abandoning all existing Harbor Subdivision track between the Green Line and Crenshaw Blvd. By choosing not to keep main line trackage and by "eliminating this shared corridor, MTA removes the additional clearance requirements and the associated increase in right-of-way and wayside costs." This has the obvious consequence of making a Union Station-LAX-South Bay regional rail service practically impossible to implement in the future. This staff recommendation will have serious long-term impacts on LAX and the region. Anybody have more details on this? Bart? |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 13, 2011 6:21:03 GMT -8
My opinion is that the LAX express was doomed anyway, at least in the near future. However, now making one eventually will be that much more expensive. Exactly how much cost savings are we talking about? Just curious, I am sure that the Crenshaw line is ultimately more important in the long run than an LAX express, although one could be made with a transfer I suppose. I guess this buys a station or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 13, 2011 8:06:07 GMT -8
Here is the text from the report:  Where exactly is MP 13.25? It says just South of the Green Line structure, but not which structure. Specifically, I'm wondering whether this covers the ROW South of the Marine Green Line station. If they extend the Green Line to 190th/Hawthorne, then having that existing track abandoned could make the new construction less costly. For example, that section is elevated, and they might be able to make portions of it "at grade" if the BNSF tracks there are abandoned. I realize that they will probably want to keep the Green Line an exclusive ROW (i.e. no street crossings), but even if they have to build an elevated structure the whole way, it would be a lot easier if they could simply tear out the existing track and not have to build around it. RT |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 13, 2011 8:13:22 GMT -8
Ok, so 13.25 - 7.95 is 5.3 miles. I used Google Maps and see that going South from 67th street (Crenshaw), that 5.3 miles down the track gets you to just South of the 105 freeway. Thats basically where the Crenshaw Line would meet up with the Green Line. So the track that is South of the Marine station would presumably be intact, for now, but only reachable from the South.
Anybody know if those large factories South of the 105 (i.e. Northrop, etc.) still actively use the freight tracks?
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 13, 2011 8:16:18 GMT -8
This has the obvious consequence of making a Union Station-LAX-South Bay regional rail service practically impossible to implement in the future. This staff recommendation will have serious long-term impacts on LAX and the region. Is this because without widening the ROW in certain areas, that it will only accommodate the 2 tracks for the Crenshaw Line, and nothing more like what would be needed to support a direct LAX/US line that doesn't use the Crenshaw Line tracks? |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 17, 2011 23:01:22 GMT -8
According to satellite imagery, the Harbor Subdivision right-of-way is usually 60 feet wide, with a few spots down to 40 feet or so. There is usually room for 3 tracks, though in the 40 foot second you might need to buy some adjacent parking lots for maintenance access.
Even if the current "main line" freight tracks are removed, it should be possible to add in new tracks for express service in the future, if Metro makes the effort to leave room on one side. But certainly it does not look like Metrolink to LAX will happen any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 18, 2011 19:41:42 GMT -8
It agree with many posters, in that any future LRT service on the Harbor Subdivision (east of the Crenshaw Line) should link with the Blue line. I think this would solve much of the ROW width problem east of the Blue Line. That section could be exclusively Metrolink. The section between the Blue Line and, say, Denker Ave, could be somewhat difficult. I suppose the ROW could be exclusively trenched Metrolink, while any LRT service could be located ON Slauson Blvd as an aerial structure. However... the rest of the route (west of Denker Ave) might be the toughest to fit 4 tracks - 2 LRT and 2 Metrolink. Fortunately, much of ROW-adjacent property in this area isn't residential, so any ROW widening shouldn't be that politically treacherous. Hyde Park Blvd could be reduced to 3 lanes (sort of like freeway adjacent streets like Garvey, with 2 lanes for traffic, and only 1 for parking). Also, Portal Ave near LAX seems to be pretty useless, anyway, so any of that street that still remains adjacent to the ROW could be acquired to widen it. **whew*** ...  |
|
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).
