|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 8, 2012 12:54:05 GMT -8
This board is a ghost town. Gokhan must be on vacation. I think people are upset with how the Expo Line has become...... As a now daily rider, the slowness of the Expo Line on the Flower street segment is now beyond irritation. This is worst than the Gold Line signaling issues. The other day, we stopped at 10 intersections between Jefferson and Pico ranging from 30 seconds to 2 minutes at each stop. Those car drivers on the I-110 riding parallel with the Expo Line probably look over and say "eh, and that's why Metro rail sucks in LA". Expo Line needs to address the serious signal issues...FAST (literally!).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 8, 2012 14:45:23 GMT -8
Yep the slowness sucks. And even worse, I don't see any good solution on the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jun 8, 2012 15:39:32 GMT -8
The board, more specifically this thread is a ghost town because the Line is built and done already. Culver City and Farmdale is opening June 20, so there is no speculation. Nothing is really happening on Expo Phase II.
The joy of this board was the anticipation of the Expo Line, now that it is done so is the excitement.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 8, 2012 15:43:43 GMT -8
I think people are upset with how the Expo Line has become...... As a now daily rider, the slowness of the Expo Line on the Flower street segment is now beyond irritation. I haven't ridden very often, but it's strange that I have heard more complaints from Expo riders than blue line riders when it's blue line riders that have been negatively effected. The blue line headways can be very erratic with significant gaps between trains. Usually this would mean that you could wait briefly and then get a relatively empty train following close, but that's not been the case. The intervals are just missed. Blue line trains are more erratic, more crowded, and slower.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jun 8, 2012 21:57:22 GMT -8
Well it took the Pasadena Gold Line close to five years to shave 5 mins of the local trains. I'm cautiously optimistic that as Metro staff and crew become more familiar with operating two street running interlining rail lines that trip times will become less erratic, it just might take a while to get there.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 9, 2012 10:19:36 GMT -8
I think people are upset with how the Expo Line has become...... As a now daily rider, the slowness of the Expo Line on the Flower street segment is now beyond irritation. I haven't ridden very often, but it's strange that I have heard more complaints from Expo riders than blue line riders when it's blue line riders that have been negatively effected. The blue line headways can be very erratic with significant gaps between trains. Usually this would mean that you could wait briefly and then get a relatively empty train following close, but that's not been the case. The intervals are just missed. Blue line trains are more erratic, more crowded, and slower. The difference with the Blue Line and Expo Line is that Washington blvd is perfectly timed that 95% of the time on Washington blvd you are gliding and only stopping at stations. Then the Alameda/Long Beach blvd section is completely separated or gated to Long Beach. It's only in Long Beach city does the Blue Line go irritatingly slow; but not as ridiculously slow as the 3 mile segment on Flower street for the Expo Line. Long Beach city needs to signal sync the Blue Line. Los Angeles needs to signal sync the Expo Line on Flower street
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 9, 2012 10:31:41 GMT -8
Also a big Simcity fan. But I always thought their anti-transit game play was a big let down. Hopefully the new one will be less ideological and more realistic. SimCity 4 was never an anti-transit game. You need transit to build high density cities. There are also mods that add bus and rail options, as well as mods that overhaul the pathfinding system so the sims make better use of transit. In the original game, sims took the shortest route in length instead of the shortest route in time, and this caused all sorts of problems. The Network Addon Mod fixed that. Now CitiesXL, that is an anti-transit game, at least the initial versions. That's why I never got into it.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 9, 2012 13:27:57 GMT -8
I haven't ridden very often, but it's strange that I have heard more complaints from Expo riders than blue line riders when it's blue line riders that have been negatively effected. The blue line headways can be very erratic with significant gaps between trains. Usually this would mean that you could wait briefly and then get a relatively empty train following close, but that's not been the case. The intervals are just missed. Blue line trains are more erratic, more crowded, and slower. The difference with the Blue Line and Expo Line is that Washington blvd is perfectly timed that 95% of the time on Washington blvd you are gliding and only stopping at stations. Then the Alameda/Long Beach blvd section is completely separated or gated to Long Beach. It's only in Long Beach city does the Blue Line go irritatingly slow; but not as ridiculously slow as the 3 mile segment on Flower street for the Expo Line. Long Beach city needs to signal sync the Blue Line. Los Angeles needs to signal sync the Expo Line on Flower street I know that the blue line is fast between Willow and Washington, but it's been slowed between Washington and 7th/Metro because of Expo. It also has uneven service because of Expo with longer waits for trains during rush hour. Since Expo has opened this is how the blue line trips have been effected: - NB delays for rush hour trains (1-2 minutes on average)
- Additional stop on Washington for a light (1 minute)
- Longer wait to turn onto Flower (< 1 minute)
- Additional waits at lights on Flower and waits into 7th/metro (1-2 minutes)
So I'd say that at rush hour Expo has caused NB blue line trips to be at least 3-5 minutes longer. Sometimes it's an additional 5 minutes just waiting for a train to show up and then several minutes additional with all of the other stuff, so 10 minutes extra is fairly common. And I disagree that the blue line didn't already stop at lights on Washington. At rush hour that happens routinely. Outside of rush hour not so much. But where trains rarely stopped for lights before was on Flower and now they stop once or twice every trip, just like Expo. The place where Expo is extra slow is between USC and Washington, but that's the bit that I expect will be greatly improved with time and experience.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 12, 2012 8:49:15 GMT -8
This might be a really dumb question, but why is Metro keeping the Washington/Fairfax Transit Hub open?
Now that La Cienega/Jefferson is up and running, wouldn't it make more sense to re-route the buses there?
Not to mention the fact that this "transit hub" is practically in the middle of nowhere and sketchy nearly all hours of the day.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 13, 2012 3:25:05 GMT -8
Now that La Cienega/Jefferson is up and running, wouldn't it make more sense to re-route the buses there? I wondered that too, but if you look around the station, there isn't a good place to park or turn around buses. Culver City would be a better bus hub for parking and turning. And it's not underneath a freeway.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 13, 2012 8:23:43 GMT -8
Now that La Cienega/Jefferson is up and running, wouldn't it make more sense to re-route the buses there? I wondered that too, but if you look around the station, there isn't a good place to park or turn around buses. Culver City would be a better bus hub for parking and turning. And it's not underneath a freeway. That begs the question of why wasn't a bus terminal included with the design of the station?
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jun 14, 2012 19:47:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 15, 2012 15:15:33 GMT -8
I wondered that too, but if you look around the station, there isn't a good place to park or turn around buses. Culver City would be a better bus hub for parking and turning. And it's not underneath a freeway. That begs the question of why wasn't a bus terminal included with the design of the station? LaCienega/Jefferson Station does have a signaled bus turnaround area on Jefferson and a lot of street bus parking, it could happen, just operationally it would be a less a bus yard than Washington/Fairfax and more of a quick layover spot.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 15, 2012 15:58:10 GMT -8
I wondered that too, but if you look around the station, there isn't a good place to park or turn around buses. Culver City would be a better bus hub for parking and turning. And it's not underneath a freeway. That begs the question of why wasn't a bus terminal included with the design of the station? Buses already layover at Venice/Robertson (33/733 short line and BBB super 12) on the side of the road but Culver City expressed strong objection to a full blown multi-modal transfer facility at the Venice/Robertson station during early planning. When the initial phase 1 plan was finalized, Venice/Robertson was a surface station and it was determined that there is no room for bus layover with planned car parking lot (yea... I know ). When the station was redesigned into aerial bridge, the bus interface issue was not revisited. Instead, Culver City decided to sell the land to developers. Jefferson/La Cienega was never designed as a bus terminal because very few bus actually serve this station. A bus terminal on Expo line (if there was going to be one) was always going to be at Venice/Robertson by necessity. I think in the long run, bus riders will vote with their feet. Since most buses that serve/layover at Wasington/Fairfax also are being re-routed to either Jefferson/La Cienega or Venice/Robertson, I think you will see ridership shift. People will definitely take the bus 1 or 2 extra stop to a more pleasant transfer point. However, the need for bus layover yard doesn't change so I don't expect Metro to eliminate service to Washington/Fairfax.
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Jun 16, 2012 22:14:20 GMT -8
West LA Transit Center is already being downgraded, since 217's now continue to La Cienega station except at night. The 534 could terminate in downtown Culver City, but it would break conenctions with the local east-west service on the 35, 37, and 38, and north south service on the 217. In any event, it will likely be eliminated when Phase II opens anyway. The 780 could also probably be extended to the Expo Line. Operationally the 35 and 38 are considered one loop route.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jun 18, 2012 9:32:05 GMT -8
West LA Transit Center is already being downgraded, since 217's now continue to La Cienega station except at night. The 534 could terminate in downtown Culver City, but it would break conenctions with the local east-west service on the 35, 37, and 38, and north south service on the 217. In any event, it will likely be eliminated when Phase II opens anyway. The 780 could also probably be extended to the Expo Line. Operationally the 35 and 38 are considered one loop route. 534 will go away once Expo phase 2 opens? They'll still need the Santa Monica-Trancas portion. I guess they'll truncate it to Santa Monica and renumber, since it will no longer be an express route. Wonder what the numbering will be (don't know if that's considered an east-west or north-south route). Maybe MTA will just dump the whole mess onto Big Blue Bus ;D
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 18, 2012 10:46:11 GMT -8
West LA Transit Center is already being downgraded, since 217's now continue to La Cienega station except at night. The 534 could terminate in downtown Culver City, but it would break conenctions with the local east-west service on the 35, 37, and 38, and north south service on the 217. In any event, it will likely be eliminated when Phase II opens anyway. The 780 could also probably be extended to the Expo Line. Operationally the 35 and 38 are considered one loop route. 534 will go away once Expo phase 2 opens? They'll still need the Santa Monica-Trancas portion. I guess they'll truncate it to Santa Monica and renumber, since it will no longer be an express route. Wonder what the numbering will be (don't know if that's considered an east-west or north-south route). Maybe MTA will just dump the whole mess onto Big Blue Bus ;D I hope they keep it around, unless the ridership falls off which could happen with the Express up charge, because it's going to remain faster than the Exposition Line to Santa Monica regardless as there are no intermediate stops between Culver City Station and Colorado/4th Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 18, 2012 11:39:45 GMT -8
The 534 will indeed be shortened and maybe even given to Santa Monica as there will be no need to replicate the Expo Line route from CC to Santa Monica.
I can see the BBB #10 being eliminated right when Expo Line opens to Santa Monica. Wasn't there a freeway express between Long Beach and Downtown LA until the Blue Line opened? Same thing will happen with Expo Line/ Line #10.
I wonder how the ridership on the F Dash is doing now with the Expo Line open. It's the same route replicated, but obviously with less stops on Dash than Expo Line, but much longer service hours. I think LADOT should cancel the F Dash and use those resources for another service (maybe late night service between South Park and Little Tokyo via Old Bank District?)
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 18, 2012 12:01:03 GMT -8
West LA Transit Center is already being downgraded, since 217's now continue to La Cienega station except at night. The 534 could terminate in downtown Culver City, but it would break conenctions with the local east-west service on the 35, 37, and 38, and north south service on the 217. In any event, it will likely be eliminated when Phase II opens anyway. The 780 could also probably be extended to the Expo Line. Operationally the 35 and 38 are considered one loop route. 534 will go away once Expo phase 2 opens? They'll still need the Santa Monica-Trancas portion. I guess they'll truncate it to Santa Monica and renumber, since it will no longer be an express route. Wonder what the numbering will be (don't know if that's considered an east-west or north-south route). Maybe MTA will just dump the whole mess onto Big Blue Bus ;D Good question... ;D I think Metro will consider it east-west so it will be 134. Although that could be misleading because the corridor serviced is well north of 130 (Artesia Blvd). BBB probably wouldn't want it since BBB9 is already one of the poorest performing line in their system.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 19, 2012 1:11:06 GMT -8
I can see the BBB #10 being eliminated right when Expo Line opens to Santa Monica. Wasn't there a freeway express between Long Beach and Downtown LA until the Blue Line opened? Same thing will happen with Expo Line/ Line #10. That'll be Santa Monica's call. What Line 10 has in its favor is that a lot of its ridership is coming from Santa Monica College. The buses can go from empty to standing room only just before it gets on the freeway. The express service to Long Beach ended because it was an RTD route. Torrance and Gardena kept their downtown express buses long after the Blue Line opened, and didn't just shift riders over to the Blue Line once it opened. Montebello has kept its 340s lines after the Gold Line came to East L.A.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 19, 2012 8:06:10 GMT -8
BBB probably wouldn't want it since BBB9 is already one of the poorest performing line in their system. A direct line to Malibu via PCH and the winding route of BBB9 are not exactly the same thing. I'm wondering how much further west on PCH the 534 could travel and still have any ridership? If the express section between Santa Monica and Fairfax, would that allow former-534 to go further west without increasing service hours? Or would more frequency on the remaining portion be better?
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Jun 19, 2012 11:59:02 GMT -8
I've taken the BBB#10 from SM to the LA Civic Center when doing jury duty, and I have to say I would still be inclined to take it after Expo Line Phase 2 opens, if it's still available. The BBB stops on SM Blvd are a lot closer to where I live than Bergamot Station, #10 stops right in front of the Criminal Courts building in downtown LA, and I would have to switch trains at 7th St./Metro Center until the Downtown Connector is completed. The slow times for the Expo Line on Flower St. are also a drag.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 19, 2012 14:31:41 GMT -8
I agree, having taken BBB #10 from Ocean to 7th/Olive in 30 minutes, there's still going to be a crowd for the Express bus. Express buses and rail can coexist, with express buses getting their quickly and for a little extra in cost factors nicely into the choices that are made available to the riding public. I rather have a choice to ride the Expo Line or the BBB #10 on top of options to drive or take a taxi.
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Jun 19, 2012 21:44:04 GMT -8
I really wish they would open the Culver City station at the start of the day. I'm actually in a position to take Expo tomorrow but need to catch the 6:59-ish train out, so I'll basically miss out on starting at a fully-functional station. It especially stinks because, coming back, I'll have to get off "early" at La Cienega to get my scooter.
Speaking of which, where's the best spot for scooter parking in that garage? Parking with the bikes seems off, but taking up a whole car spot isn't right either.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jun 20, 2012 5:24:50 GMT -8
Metro has a public relations problem and, it seems, severe operational problems. Today's Los Angeles Times article details some of them - is it still being run like this? Forty minute delays? What gives? Expo Line's halting start (link)If mass transit is to succeed in Los Angeles, the MTA is going to have to get its act together. "We drove to the La Cienega station, parked in the free Metro lot adjacent to the track and bought our tickets. But instead of a train every 12 minutes or so, as promised on MTA's schedule, we waited 25 minutes for the train, without explanation from the Metro staffers on the platform. When the train did arrive, 15 or so of us sat inside for another 20 minutes, again without a word from the driver..."
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 20, 2012 8:54:05 GMT -8
Metro has a public relations problem and, it seems, severe operational problems. Today's Los Angeles Times article details some of them - is it still being run like this? Forty minute delays? What gives? Expo Line's halting start (link)If mass transit is to succeed in Los Angeles, the MTA is going to have to get its act together. "We drove to the La Cienega station, parked in the free Metro lot adjacent to the track and bought our tickets. But instead of a train every 12 minutes or so, as promised on MTA's schedule, we waited 25 minutes for the train, without explanation from the Metro staffers on the platform. When the train did arrive, 15 or so of us sat inside for another 20 minutes, again without a word from the driver..." I was there that day, there were signaling problems between LaBrea and LaCienega with a westbound train stopped at the Hauser crossing. There was a truck and some workers parked in front of the train at Hauser too. Eventually they sent out an advisory for Expo trains to turn back at LaBrea. I think I took a bus back from Culver City on the return trip. Would be nice if they used those big nice LED screens to tell you when the next train is coming or to report on service advisories. Honestly, I think the Red Line is a worse offender of timeliness and communication, I've missed maybe a half dozen Metrolink/Amtrak trains in the last month of commuting to work due to the Red Line's delays, stop and go while pulling into Union Station, or dwelling at stations for minutes waiting on a stalled or broken down trains. It happened as recently as Monday early evening.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jun 20, 2012 11:40:47 GMT -8
Ouch.
Were the stations still able to be opened?
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Jun 20, 2012 16:22:24 GMT -8
I took a break this afternoon to check out the Expo Park/USC station at about 5:00 pm, as I periodically do, and there were a lot more people waiting for the train, particularly on the WB platform, than I've seen previously at this time of day. The EB train that came through also seemed to have more riders. I didn't think opening the Culver City station would make much difference to USC ridership until fall classes started, but at least for the first day it appears to have had an immediate effect.
|
|
|
Post by thedessie on Jun 20, 2012 16:22:28 GMT -8
Yes, they opened. There were already a fair number of people from Culver City on the train when I got on at La Cienega. 1 person got off, no one got on (in my car at least) at Farmdale.
My car actually had people standing for the first time I have ever seen, at least into 7th/Metro Center.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 20, 2012 16:30:02 GMT -8
7 people boarded at Farmdale in my case, more than at Crenshaw. But this is probably because of free ride at Farmdale. --> Culver City pictures at this link <--Unfortunately, the Venice Boulevard side of the Culver City Station entrance will be closed until Phase 2 is completed (at least until the Venice Blvd bridge is completed). This makes access very difficult. Access on the Venice Blvd side is currently provided from Exposition Blvd, which is now the parking-lot driveway. There are no signs pointing to the station access or to the Downtown Culver City access.
|
|