|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 1, 2012 10:03:41 GMT -8
The distance from Universal City to Hollywood & Highland on the Red Line is greater than the distance from Montclair to Claremont on Metrolink--one of those anomalies that can make comparing transit operations a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 1, 2012 10:52:55 GMT -8
5 miles is incorrect. Per wikipedia, the Purple Line is 6.4 miles. Are you sure about it being incorrect? I am measuring 4.97 miles on Google Earth. Why don't you try it yourself? The Wikipedia number may be incorrect or perhaps includes the tracks for the maintenance facility. Gokhan's measurement is quite accurate. According to a Metro Ops track diagram I'm looking at, the Purple Line is 5.02 miles long. For a "typical" average subway speed, compare to a "typical" subway segment. Defining such a segment isn't easy, or perhaps even meaningful. Yet, a segment such as Hollywood/Highland to Vermont/Beverly could be said to be fairly typical. In that case, the average speed is 27.5 mph.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 1, 2012 11:03:17 GMT -8
On another note, the following notice is posted on poles along Exposition Blvd. near USC: ATTENTION STUDENTS, RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS
In preparation of the opening of the new Metro Expo Light Rail Line, certain emergency drills need to be conducted. Metro is coordinating these drills with local law enforcement, fire departments, and other agencies.
WHERE: Inside the tunnel/trench from Jefferson Blvd./Flower St. to Exposition Blvd. just east of Trousdale Parkway (Expo Park/USC Station)
WHEN: Saturday, February 4, 2012- DRILL WILL BE CONDUCTED RAIN OR SHINE 8:00AM to 11:00AM
WHAT: Emergency drill involving a simulated fire in the tunnel/trench
WHAT TO EXPECT:
- Large amounts of fog smoke will be visible at street level- do not be alarmed. It is odorless and not toxic.
- Exposition Blvd. will remain open to traffic.
- Do not enter the area described above.
- Due to the drill, there will be numerous law enforcement vehicles and fire equipment in the area.
Please note the time frame noted above is subject to change.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions or need additional information regarding the drill, please contact:
Stacy Yamato, Metro Community Relations 213-922-4055; yamatos@metro.net
Tom Jasmin, Metro Operations 213-703-7848; jasmint@metro.net
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 1, 2012 11:14:09 GMT -8
On another note, the following notice is posted on poles along Exposition Blvd. near USC: They said that on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, there will be emergency-responder drills at various locations in the morning. This is required as part of the prerevenue testing.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 1, 2012 11:27:54 GMT -8
Perception of speed of surface rail is always slower than subway. It's just human nature. You always assume you are going much faster when you are underground in a tube with no references to passing scenery and landmark.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 1, 2012 14:42:16 GMT -8
Perception of speed of surface rail is always slower than subway. It's just human nature. You always assume you are going much faster when you are underground in a tube with no references to passing scenery and landmark. Indeed. I had a well-informed urban planning professor insist to me that the Gold Line from LAUS to Pasadena was unbearably slow. When I explained that its average speed end-to-end was basically the same as the Red Line, he seemed incredulous. That said, the stretches when Expo is going 55 mph, it does feel quite fast. But at the end of the day, the amount of stops and dwell time at stations typically has a much bigger impact on average speed than the top speed of the line -- a speed it may hit for only brief stretches.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 1, 2012 15:56:24 GMT -8
What this shows is that, if you have an abandoned rail right-of-way, you can build at-grade light-rail on it that will be as fast as a subway. I think it shows theres something seriously wrong with the design of the subway if it cant beat surface light rail that has to deal with traffic signals and grade crossings.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 1, 2012 16:04:23 GMT -8
5 miles is incorrect. Per wikipedia, the Purple Line is 6.4 miles. Are you sure about it being incorrect? I am measuring 4.97 miles on Google Earth. Why don't you try it yourself? The Wikipedia number may be incorrect or perhaps includes the tracks for the maintenance facility. Yep, looks like you're right. The incorrect values are repeated several times online, I will get these fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 1, 2012 16:12:30 GMT -8
Are you sure about it being incorrect? I am measuring 4.97 miles on Google Earth. Why don't you try it yourself? The Wikipedia number may be incorrect or perhaps includes the tracks for the maintenance facility. Yep, looks like you're right. The incorrect values are repeated several times online, I will get these fixed. I think the extra 1.4 miles is the trackage from the Union Station to the end of the maintenance facility.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 1, 2012 16:15:01 GMT -8
I think it shows theres something seriously wrong with the design of the subway if it cant beat surface light rail that has to deal with traffic signals and grade crossings. Not really. Subways are designed for shorter station spacing than light rails. As Gokhan explained earlier, there's more stops per mile on the Purple Line than on Expo Line. So if the subway has to slow/stop for stations more often, obviously the Expo Line with its grade crossings will now be competitive. If you think our subways/light rail slow, the distance covered on the subways in New York is actually not much and can take quite some time, unless you ride the Express Trains (i.e. A Train). This is common throughout the world and won't change anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 1, 2012 16:52:12 GMT -8
I think it shows theres something seriously wrong with the design of the subway if it cant beat surface light rail that has to deal with traffic signals and grade crossings. Not really. Subways are designed for shorter station spacing than light rails. As Gokhan explained earlier, there's more stops per mile on the Purple Line than on Expo Line. So if the subway has to slow/stop for stations more often, obviously the Expo Line with its grade crossings will now be competitive. If you think our subways/light rail slow, the distance covered on the subways in New York is actually not much and can take quite some time, unless you ride the Express Trains (i.e. A Train). This is common throughout the world and won't change anywhere. I don't think you can quite generalize so broadly about what subways and light rail are designed to do. There just a technology deployed in many different ways in different contexts, particularly with respect to stop spacing. I would definitely agree about New York. A while back I looked up trips on the NYC Metro that were comparable in distance to Expo Phase 1. It turns out a trip from New York City hall (southern end of Manhattan) to Yankee Stadium is almost exactly the same distance (9 miles) and takes the same time (26 miuntes) as Expo Phase 1. And that's on the 4 Express train.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 1, 2012 19:03:17 GMT -8
Yes, lets hope Expo is fast. I'll wait to pass judgement until it is carrying passengers at rush hour though. Like I said once the Purple Line goes to La Brea, we'll be able to appreciate its speed advantage.
We are counting Farmdale in Expo's station count, where of course there shouldn't be a station. One of the advantages of a subway is that you only generally put stations where they are supposed to be because they are so expensive. If the Purple Line were light rail there would be a station at Crenshaw and if Expo were a subway, there most certainly would not be one at Farmdale.
Well, it does seem based on Gokhan's calcs that the signaling is shaping up pretty good and we can get a speedy line. I think there will be a big difference between a 40 minute ride to Santa Monica vs. a 50 minute one. Hopefully we remain on track for something closer to 40 when it is all said and done.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 2, 2012 1:16:24 GMT -8
[ Not really. Subways are designed for shorter station spacing than light rails. Thats simply not accurate at all. Subways have further stop spacing than surface lines because its much more expensive to build more stops. Look at how NYC cancelled 1 of 2 stations in their 7 extension because adding a second station would cost something ludicrous like $200 million. Are NYC subway stations more closely spaces than expo light rail stations? Sure. But thats not a valid comparison at all. Compare a 1900 subway with a 1900 light rail line. Like in Boston. And then compare a 2000 subway with a 2000 light rail line. In both cases, the subways will have further station spacing. Generally, older systems have closer station spacing.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Feb 2, 2012 7:05:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 2, 2012 13:06:58 GMT -8
There were a few westbound test trains today, not as often as sometimes. We should see more and more trains as the time goes by and they should eventually start running them during the peak hours.
On another note, the work at Culver City is taking place painfully slow. They are still trying to hook up the TPSS at Washington and National. It looks like they are trying to hook it up to a point near Hayden Avenue now. It's already hooked up where it's located. The work for the parking lot is months away from being finished. They also recently brought what seems to be yellow bumpers to keep trains from falling off the unfinished structure. But perhaps they are something else.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Feb 2, 2012 13:20:55 GMT -8
If pre-revenue does last only 7 weeks (which I don't think it will) It should open sometime in March. What might be cool though, if it does take longer than expected to finish everything, is if it opened around April 15th to tie in with CicLAvia. A little longer but definitely a cool scene to be a part of.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 2, 2012 13:47:33 GMT -8
The average station spacing along the Expo Line is 0.79 miles. It is 0.71 miles along the Purple Line. Therefore, it's roughly the same for both lines.
Purple Line has several sections of curved track. Perhaps that's what's slowing it down. It's also true that when the station spacing is about 1 mile or less -- standard light-rail or subway station spacing -- the maximum speed of the trains doesn't make too much difference after a certain point.
In subway systems like New York's, there are so many trains that there is train-traffic congestion, which slows the system considerably.
Again, hopefully the Expo Line will get faster and there won't be any issues.
Currently the Expo Line speed is looking fairly good, which is around 21 MPH average, and hopefully it will get better and match the Purple Line's 23 MPH average or perhaps do even better.
Note that the Gold Line Eastside Extension only averages 5.77 miles / 24 minutes * 60 min/hr = 14 MPH.
Despite the perception, Pasadena Gold Line averages a super-fast 28 MPH (13.6 miles, 29 minutes) and makes the Purple Line look like a turtle.
Finally, the Red Line from North Hollywood averages 29 MPH (14.7 miles, 30 minutes), only a tad-bit faster than the Pasadena Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 2, 2012 14:31:12 GMT -8
Someone should start up a new thread that compares all the lines average speeds and station spacings. And also note whether it changes over time as lines mature.
Question: are the distance computations above based on direct distances between stations, or do they follow the actual track?
RT
Sent from my DROID RAZR using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 2, 2012 14:56:00 GMT -8
Question: are the distance computations above based on direct distances between stations, or do they follow the actual track? RT The rail distances are always measured along the track for them to make sense. In other words, they correspond to the odometer/tripmeter on the train. You need to follow along the actual track. I also measure them between the platform centers and don't include any tail tracks. That way, you get a consistent representation of the track mileage that can be related to the trip time.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 3, 2012 11:38:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 3, 2012 11:45:14 GMT -8
Red-light cameras along the Expo Line will get you if you can't make it through a yellow or proceed against a red!
Today some SUV took a right turn on to Crenshaw from eastbound Exposition toward the end phase of a yellow arrow. He/she did hesitate but did go past the line. I saw the camera flash going off. Funny thing is that he/she was standing there and didn't back up and instead completed the turn against the solid red.
If you see a yellow and you can stop safely, don't try to beat it. There is little margin (not more than a small fraction of a second) after the light turns red and your photo will be taken.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 3, 2012 12:08:04 GMT -8
9.5 minutes and 21 minutes between Vermont and La Brea? That is extruciating. Why? That's only 11.5 minutes. As I said, the train had to wait an extra 2 minutes at Crenshaw because it just missed the green light. Where's the time for Expo/Western Station? Do trains have to tragically still sit through the traffic light cycles at Normandie?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 3, 2012 20:17:21 GMT -8
Where's the time for Expo/Western Station? Do trains have to tragically still sit through the traffic light cycles at Normandie? It's not easy to catch or see the train at every station. I don't think there is signal sync along Exposition yet. Trains are also going very slow somehow in the gated section. I also don't know the reason for the Farmdale 10 MPH speed limit throughout that area -- perhaps it's temporary until the station is constructed and they will have a 15 MPH speed limit only while the cab of the train goes through the crossing afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 3, 2012 20:18:11 GMT -8
For the first time, most lights of the Culver City Station were on.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 6, 2012 11:41:29 GMT -8
BREAKING NEWS: Expo Line prerevenue operation (sort of) began todayAfter one day of delay, Metro started the prerevenue operation, and I saw several test trains running along the line today. There is considerable delay (around five minutes) at the junction, which still seems to be operated in the manual mode. As Metro gets gradually comfortable with the junction and starts operating it automatically, we should see the full prerevenue operation taking place. Here is the current timing of the line: 7th/Metro: 0 minutes Pico: 2 minutes 23rd St: 4 minutes (projected, not accounting for the current five-minute delay at the manually operated junction) Jefferson: 6 minutes USC / Expo Park: 8 minutes Vermont: 9.5 minutes La Brea: 21 minutes La Cienega: 23 minutes Culver City: 25 minutes (estimated) Signal synchronization is still rather poor along the line. Trains spend considerable time at Crenshaw. If it wasn't for the delay at Crensahw, the time would be 2 minutes less. I was also surprised that the signal turned red at Menlo just before the train was about to depart eastbound from the Vermont Station. At Farmdale, it slows down to 15 MPH well before it comes near the platform. The most difficult part of the prerevenue operation will be getting comfortable with the junction and reducing delays there and getting comfortable with turning the trains at 7th/Metro. More operator training and tests are needed to get the operations at the junction and 7th/Metro running smoothly. Once the junction and 7th/Metro are operating smoothly, the line can open very soon. I timed a Siemens two-car train between La Cienega and Expo Park / USC today. This time Crenshaw wasn't a problem but the lights along Exposition in the signal controlled section between Trousdale and Western were a problem. The train spent a lot of time waiting at Raymond Ave (for a green left-turn arrow for the cars that do not exist on this very minor street), Vermont Ave (green arrow again), and Watt Way (a USC gate), adding at least two minutes to the total time and I got the same 15 minutes as a result: Station | Today | Last week | Wikipedia (with signal sync) | La Cienega | 0 minutes | 0 minutes | 0 minutes | La Brea | 2 minutes | 2 minutes | 2 minutes | Farmdale | 4 minutes | ? minutes | 4 minutes | Crenshaw | 6 minutes | ? minutes | 5.5 minutes | Western | 9.5 minutes | ? minutes | 8.5 minutes | Vermont | 13 minutes | 13.5 minutes | 10.5 minutes | Expo Park / USC | 15 minutes | 15 minutes | 12 minutes |
It looks like the section where there are no gates and the Crenshaw crossing will slow down this line. Unless they somehow fix the signals in the section with no crossing gates, the best time to Culver City from 7th/Metro will be 25 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Feb 8, 2012 12:26:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 8, 2012 13:45:35 GMT -8
What is up with you guys? Before the pre-revenue service all I heard was belly-aching, crying, moaning,groaning and under your breathe cursing, about the start up of pre-venue, now it's started you ain't saying a dang word about it! Are you happier crying about the before than the hereafter? Well, I've been providing updates, such as the update on Monday. As the time goes on, we'll see more and more prerevenue trains and they will eventually follow the regular schedule. So far they have been running the junction in the manual mode but Metro recently tested it in the automatic mode and it worked perfectly. Soon, they will start using the junction in the automatic mode. Expect an April 15 opening to La Cienega, if not earlier. It looks like the running time from 7th/Metro will be 23 minutes to La Cienega and 25 minutes to Culver City, unless they manage to improve it. 25 minutes to Culver City corresponds to 40 minutes to Colorado/4th in Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 8, 2012 14:29:06 GMT -8
What is up with you guys? Before the pre-revenue service all I heard was belly-aching, crying, moaning,groaning and under your breathe cursing, about the start up of pre-venue, now it's started you ain't saying a dang word about it! Are you happier crying about the before than the hereafter? Of course I'm happy that pre-revenue service has begun. Better than the alternative. But this doesn't remove the ill will caused by Metro/Expo/FFP's delays which extended for many, many months. As both a transit advocate and a taxpayer, I'm disgusted by the wasteful delays which have accompanied the rollout of this line. But anyway, for your sake: "Huzzah for the very very very very late start of pre-revenue service!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 8, 2012 23:02:54 GMT -8
What is up with you guys? Before the pre-revenue service all I heard was belly-aching, crying, moaning,groaning and under your breathe cursing, about the start up of pre-venue, now it's started you ain't saying a dang word about it! Are you happier crying about the before than the hereafter? Of course I'm happy that pre-revenue service has begun. Better than the alternative. But this doesn't remove the ill will caused by Metro/Expo/FFP's delays which extended for many, many months. As both a transit advocate and a taxpayer, I'm disgusted by the wasteful delays which have accompanied the rollout of this line. But anyway, for your sake: "Huzzah for the very very very very late start of pre-revenue service!" ;D To say that this line is a disaster would be putting it modestly. It has really put Los Angeles to shame. Every other city is building many light rail lines on time and under budget. Salt Lake City even opened 2 lines at once. I can't figure out why Seattle has no problem building an the entirely underground and expensive U-Link, but we can't build an 8-mile at grade LRT. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 9, 2012 5:08:14 GMT -8
I can't figure out why Seattle has no problem building an the entirely underground and expensive U-Link, but we can't build an 8-mile at grade LRT. Pathetic. Hmmm, while I don't want to support the management of this project, which I agree has been pretty poor (should definitely have opened many months ago), maybe that comparison isn't exactly fair. If you tunnel deep enough, all you have to worry about are the access points for the TBM, and the station boxes. There are (hopefully) fewer lawsuits about whether a section near a school is elevated, at grade, or gets its own podunk station. There is potentially less utility relocation to do, etc. Each project has its own pros and cons, and aren't necessarily comparable. The Expo line, though, has had some pretty damn slack management.
|
|