|
Post by metrocenter on May 4, 2010 14:25:21 GMT -8
Yellow would be a good color. It's a primary color that contrasts well with Blue. Plus, there'll be no confusion with the Gold Line, since the Yellow (Expo) Line would come nowhere near the Gold Line. And finally, when the Connector is eventually built, the Yellow Line will disappear for reasons that have been stated again and again. But anyway, it's not going to be the Yellow Line, it's going to be the Aqua Line. And in truth, most people will be able to figure it out. Viva the Aqua Line! I'd just like Metro to finally settle this once and for all, so I can finalize the colors on all the wikipedia articles. BTW, piece of trivia: there is a word "aquiline" (very close to "Aqua Line"), which refers to a type of nose (aka the Roman nose) that has a prominent bridge. Comes from the Latin for "eagle-like". Here's the Aqua Line, for comparison:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 23, 2011 21:16:13 GMT -8
Well, this issue was resolved a long time ago (arguably at least until the post-Downtown-Connector era), and the name of the line is Expo Line, not Aqua Line. Naming a product is always important, as Apple spends a lot of time on naming their new iPhone, Google spends a lot of time on the name of the versions of their Android operating system and smartphones, Toyota spends a lot of time naming their hybrid line of cars, etc. Speaking of which, Toyota has decided to name their new, compact version of the Prius as "Toyota Aqua," at least in Japan. Toyota Aqua will be cheaper and more fuel efficient than Toyota PriusLeaked Toyota Aqua brochure
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 24, 2011 15:10:12 GMT -8
I couldn't get into the poll, but my vote would be for "Aqua", since it's enough lighter than the blue of the Blue Line to avoid any misunderstandings. "Cardinal" (the obvious choice for USC fans) is too close to red. Yellow is not a good color because it doesn't show up well on maps (although Portland MAX does use it).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 24, 2011 15:30:06 GMT -8
I couldn't get into the poll, but my vote would be for "Aqua", since it's enough lighter than the blue of the Blue Line to avoid any misunderstandings. "Cardinal" (the obvious choice for USC fans) is too close to red. Yellow is not a good color because it doesn't show up well on maps (although Portland MAX does use it). Well, the color has been decided and it's already being used at the stations (such as for Metro grand pylons and station dots). It will also be used on the maps. But the name is Expo Line. In that sense, this is the only Metro Rail line that isn't named after a color. But it does have a color -- RGB #00A9E0 (= Pantone 2995) -- a vivid bluish cyan (some sort of an aqua) -- which is precisely the following: Expo Line
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 24, 2011 17:04:21 GMT -8
When were a color and name definitively decided? My recollection is that when they had a board meeting to pick a color/name that there was a ridiculous discussion involving Bernard Parks after which they decided to table the decision until some future date. They decided to continue calling it Expo(sition Transit Corridor) in the interim. I've been thinking that the "official" name will end up being the "Gold Line" and the SG Valley Gold Line will become the "Blue Line". Maybe not but I would think that they pick a common name for each line once they are connected.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 24, 2011 17:56:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Oct 24, 2011 18:20:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 24, 2011 21:56:58 GMT -8
All this will soon be irrelevant once the Regional Connector is built. It appears Metro is aiming for it to be called the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 24, 2011 23:07:17 GMT -8
I couldn't get into the poll, but my vote would be for "Aqua", since it's enough lighter than the blue of the Blue Line to avoid any misunderstandings. "Cardinal" (the obvious choice for USC fans) is too close to red. Yellow is not a good color because it doesn't show up well on maps (although Portland MAX does use it). Well, the color has been decided and it's already being used at the stations (such as for Metro grand pylons and station dots). It will also be used on the maps. But the name is Expo Line. In that sense, this is the only Metro Rail line that isn't named after a color. But it does have a color -- RGB #00A9E0 (= Pantone 2995) -- a vivid bluish cyan (some sort of an aqua) -- which is precisely the following: Expo LineJust slightly lighter than the color I've used for a few years (#3399ff or R=51 G=153 B=255); Metro's is R=0 G=169 B=224. (and interesting that you can specify a color in this forum software)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 25, 2011 8:05:33 GMT -8
(and interesting that you can specify a color in this forum software) The BBCode gets translated directly into HTML, so it makes sense that it would allow use of any RGB color.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 26, 2011 14:29:03 GMT -8
Well, the color has been decided and it's already being used at the stations (such as for Metro grand pylons and station dots). It will also be used on the maps. But the name is Expo Line. In that sense, this is the only Metro Rail line that isn't named after a color. But it does have a color -- RGB #00A9E0 (= Pantone 2995) -- a vivid bluish cyan (some sort of an aqua) -- which is precisely the following: Expo LineJust slightly lighter than the color I've used for a few years (#3399ff or R=51 G=153 B=255); Metro's is R=0 G=169 B=224. (and interesting that you can specify a color in this forum software) Darrell, you can change Phase II to "Construction" rather than "Planning". I was hoping by now that we would be talking exclusively about Phase II construction activity instead of just Phase 1. Since the actual groundbreaking is anyone aware of any activity other than some ROW clearing (the Kinkos at Bundy is now gone)? I don't know of any major utility relocation work, but I haven't really been out there to look.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 26, 2011 14:58:51 GMT -8
Since the actual groundbreaking is anyone aware of any activity other than some ROW clearing (the Kinkos at Bundy is now gone)? I don't know of any major utility relocation work, but I haven't really been out there to look. They can't build anything before the CPUC approval of the bridges and at-grade crossing scheduled for November 10. In addition, the design is still progressing and they can't start grading of the right-of-way for laying tracks until the trackwork design has been completed and the final elevations and grades are known. Expect the major construction to start around mid-2012. But they did say that they would start putting the bridge foundations in January 2012. In any case, we should start seeing utility relocation soon. We've already seen the relocation of the oil pipelines.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 16, 2012 14:35:59 GMT -8
Today on the Expo Line, a bicyclist boarded the train at Culver City just when the doors were about to close. He was looking at his smartphone app and he kept asking the operator if this was "Line 806" but the operator had no idea what he was talking about. This lack of knowledge by the operator was a bit strange considering that the three numeric dials in the operator cab need to be set to 806 for the Expo Line in order for various things on the train (such as announcements) to work properly. Eventually the operator convinced the very suspicious rider that the train was going to Downtown but it took him additional time to direct him to the center door from the outside (as bikes are not allowed in front of the operator's door).
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jul 17, 2012 5:26:43 GMT -8
Today on the Expo Line, a bicyclist boarded the train at Culver City just when the doors were about to close. He was looking at his smartphone app and he kept asking the operator if this was "Line 806" but the operator had no idea what he was talking about. This lack of knowledge by the operator was a bit strange considering that the three numeric dials in the operator cab need to be set to 806 for the Expo Line in order for various things on the train (such as announcements) to work properly. Eventually the operator convinced the very suspicious rider that the train was going to Downtown but it took him additional time to direct him to the center door from the outside (as bikes are not allowed in front of the operator's door). LOL, hence the problem of MTA making the previously internal-use only route numbers on the rail (and Orange) lines available to the public, via the file names on the pdfs on metro.net that display the schedules. When the Blue Line started in 1990, onyl way I knew it was officially line 801 was that I caught a glimpse of an operator's "paddle" (piece of paper that lists the schedule). After that, I figured out that the Red Line was line 802 (confirmed when I saw the train operator enter info into the console in the cab upon beginning of a run, one of which was route # 802), Green Line was 803, etc. Of course, in the earlier days, there was no metro.net (or its predecessor mta.net) with schedule links. That all said, I'm pretty sure the Expo operator knew that the Expo line was designated line 806 (should've been indicated on his paddle), maybe he zoned out for a minute. ;D
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 17, 2012 19:08:17 GMT -8
Metro is inching closer to rebranding the Expo representation to further differentiate it from the Blue Line, starting at 7th St/Metro Center: www.subwayjoyride.com/2012/07/09/e-is-for-expo-line/I think it goes to show that the printed color space isn't big enough for two hues of Blue without some confusion when you don't look at the map's legend
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 23, 2012 15:17:58 GMT -8
I dread the day when every line has a little (R) is for Red Line, (G) is for Green Line, (G) is for Gold... (well, I'm sure they'll work something out... and tell Beverly Hills they'll be getting the "P" train). Just like NYC, the greatest, friendliest, cleanest subway system in the world!
Are the colors really that hard to distinguish? Thankfully they should only need them for two stations: 7th/ Metro and Pico, since all other stations are one color only.
And the Regional Connector? Bring the Blue Line to Pasadena like it was originally supposed to, and the Gold Line to crimson and gold USC (and the golden sand of Santa Monica)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 23, 2012 16:27:29 GMT -8
Thanks for the bump. Missed this earlier. I like it!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 23, 2012 16:36:49 GMT -8
I don't know if I like this because it makes Expo look different than the other lines.
Why not simply make the color a little more greenish or cyan, instead of plain light blue.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 23, 2012 17:52:55 GMT -8
The color could stand to be a little more blue-green on signs and maps. That would be better than the (E). The E in Expo is silent. It should be (X). X-po.
At least for the time being. Until the Regional Connector comes.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 23, 2012 17:59:28 GMT -8
The color could stand to be a little more blue-green on signs and maps. That would be better than the (E). The E in Expo is silent. It should be (X). X-po. At least for the time being. Until the Regional Connector comes. Exactly. Won't the Expo Line be discontinued as a "color" designation until the Connector is opened? Then it's the Gold Line between East LA and Santa Monica? Pasadena will have to get used to calling their line the Blue Line eventually......as it was originally intended.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 23, 2012 18:04:15 GMT -8
well, nothing has been officially announced (has it?) that's just what the transit fandom thinks makes the most sense (and I agree). People probably have old "Pasadena Blue Line" material around.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 23, 2012 19:02:01 GMT -8
Exactly. Won't the Expo Line be discontinued as a "color" designation until the Connector is opened? Then it's the Gold Line between East LA and Santa Monica? Pasadena will have to get used to calling their line the Blue Line eventually......as it was originally intended. This is nothing more than pure speculation by a few transit fans. We're a long way from the Downtown Connector and no one knows how the lines will be operated or named. The Downtown Connector is being built with the flexibility to run different configurations and combining the lines in two simple lines would result in a waste of flexibility. It's equally likely that they will keep the existing color system and create a color for the Eastside extension and print a composite schedule for the lines like they do for the Red and Purple Lines. For example, the Expo schedule would alternate between Pasadena and East LA and the Blue schedule would alternate between Pasadena and East LA, and likewise for the Gold and Eastside schedules. Again, at the moment, it's all speculation. This probably won't be decided until the testing and start-up phase of the Downtown Connector.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 23, 2012 23:04:35 GMT -8
Exactly. Won't the Expo Line be discontinued as a "color" designation until the Connector is opened? Then it's the Gold Line between East LA and Santa Monica? Pasadena will have to get used to calling their line the Blue Line eventually......as it was originally intended. This is nothing more than pure speculation by a few transit fans. We're a long way from the Downtown Connector and no one knows how the lines will be operated or named. The Downtown Connector is being built with the flexibility to run different configurations and combining the lines in two simple lines would result in a waste of flexibility. It's equally likely that they will keep the existing color system and create a color for the Eastside extension and print a composite schedule for the lines like they do for the Red and Purple Lines. For example, the Expo schedule would alternate between Pasadena and East LA and the Blue schedule would alternate between Pasadena and East LA, and likewise for the Gold and Eastside schedules. Again, at the moment, it's all speculation. This probably won't be decided until the testing and start-up phase of the Downtown Connector. Gökhan, it's actually already been decided and isn't speculation. Copying from the metro webpage: - A north/south LRT line from Claremont to Long Beach, and
- A east/west LRT line from East Los Angeles (and in future the I-605 freeway) to Santa Monica
The original can be read here: www.metro.net/projects/connector/See also their conceptual map for how the system will work post connector: www.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/conceptual_map.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 8:00:01 GMT -8
This is nothing more than pure speculation by a few transit fans. We're a long way from the Downtown Connector and no one knows how the lines will be operated or named. The Downtown Connector is being built with the flexibility to run different configurations and combining the lines in two simple lines would result in a waste of flexibility. It's equally likely that they will keep the existing color system and create a color for the Eastside extension and print a composite schedule for the lines like they do for the Red and Purple Lines. For example, the Expo schedule would alternate between Pasadena and East LA and the Blue schedule would alternate between Pasadena and East LA, and likewise for the Gold and Eastside schedules. Again, at the moment, it's all speculation. This probably won't be decided until the testing and start-up phase of the Downtown Connector. Gökhan, it's actually already been decided and isn't speculation. Copying from the metro webpage: - A north/south LRT line from Claremont to Long Beach, and
- A east/west LRT line from East Los Angeles (and in future the I-605 freeway) to Santa Monica
The original can be read here: www.metro.net/projects/connector/See also their conceptual map for how the system will work post connector: www.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/conceptual_map.pdfYes, I am aware of what is described in the FEIR. This is not necessarily how the line will be operated once it's constructed. The emphasis right now is to construct the project and there is little thought spent on how to operate it. You don't need all operating details in the EIR. They simply chose the minimal operating configuration and stuck with it. As there was no need to study various operating configurations in the EIR, doing so would only increase the cost and duration of the EIR. Obviously, the system doesn't discriminate between Expo and Blue and between Gold and Eastside when the trains are in between the Expo/Blue and Gold/Eastside junctions. Therefore, you have the freedom to operate lines from south to east, west to north, and vice versa. Again, studying only two routes in the EIR is mainly for convenience so that this thing can be built fast. While east - west and north - south lines look like two freeways, remember that in two freeways like this, people still have the flexibility to take a west - north route without changing cars. Operating alternating Expo - Eastside and Expo - Foothill, and alternating Blue - Eastside and Blue - Foothill lines would be of great convenience to riders: (1) You can time your departure and get on the right train from the start, eliminating the need to spend time for a transfer, therefore cutting the travel time. (2) If someone was coming from, say to Long Beach and wanted to go to the Foothills, he/she would have to change trains at 7th/Metro and sometimes he/she would lose his/her seat and end up as a standee. With alternating schedules, the rider wouldn't have this problem. Nothing is cast in stone yet. They don't need the scheduling details in the EIR. Once we're in the testing and start-up phase, Metro can start spending thoughts on how to schedule the operations, and I think alternating schedules would be much better than forced transfers.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 24, 2012 8:48:47 GMT -8
Yes, I am aware of what is described in the FEIR. This is not necessarily how the line will be operated once it's constructed. The emphasis right now is to construct the project and there is little thought spent on how to operate it. You don't need all operating details in the EIR. They simply chose the minimal operating configuration and stuck with it. As there was no need to study various operating configurations in the EIR, doing so would only increase the cost and duration of the EIR. Obviously, the system doesn't discriminate between Expo and Blue and between Gold and Eastside when the trains are in between the Expo/Blue and Gold/Eastside junctions. Therefore, you have the freedom to operate lines from south to east, west to north, and vice versa. Again, studying only two routes in the EIR is mainly for convenience so that this thing can be built fast. While east - west and north - south lines look like two freeways, remember that in two freeways like this, people still have the flexibility to take a west - north route without changing cars. Operating alternating Expo - Eastside and Expo - Foothill, and alternating Blue - Eastside and Blue - Foothill lines would be of great convenience to riders: (1) You can time your departure and get on the right train from the start, eliminating the need to spend time for a transfer, therefore cutting the travel time. (2) If someone was coming from, say to Long Beach and wanted to go to the Foothills, he/she would have to change trains at 7th/Metro and sometimes he/she would lose his/her seat and end up as a standee. With alternating schedules, the rider wouldn't have this problem. Nothing is cast in stone yet. They don't need the scheduling details in the EIR. Once we're in the testing and start-up phase, Metro can start spending thoughts on how to schedule the operations, and I think alternating schedules would be much better than forced transfers.My opinion is that two fixed lines wouldn't be such a bad thing, but that it wouldn't make a big difference as some reasonable proportion of rides will involve a transfer regardless of the operations plan. Let's assume that they do a mixture of all 4 possible routes. If you're in Pasadena and want to get to Santa Monica, you're better off taking the first train that arrives on the platform even if it goes to Long Beach. You can then transfer after Little Tokyo and catch the next train to Santa Monica regardless of whether it originated in Pasadena or East LA. It turns out that wait time is one of the most important things in getting you where you want to go as fast as possible on transit. It could be that some people would want to wait a longer time on the platform in Pasadena to see if there would be a train that goes directly to Santa Monica, but I'm guessing this would be a small minority of people who would want to wait potentially much longer on one platform to avoid having to wait a strictly shorter amount of time on another platform. My prediction is that if Metro is documenting and advertising a specific operations plan, then that is the most likely outcome. These issues, though, are much less important than the existence of the connector in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 9:05:14 GMT -8
My opinion is that two fixed lines wouldn't be such a bad thing, but that it wouldn't make a big difference as some reasonable proportion of rides will involve a transfer regardless of the operations plan. Let's assume that they do a mixture of all 4 possible routes. If you're in Pasadena and want to get to Santa Monica, you're better off taking the first train that arrives on the platform even if it goes to Long Beach. You can then transfer after Little Tokyo and catch the next train to Santa Monica regardless of whether it originated in Pasadena or East LA. It turns out that wait time is one of the most important things in getting you where you want to go as fast as possible on transit. It could be that some people would want to wait a longer time on the platform in Pasadena to see if there would be a train that goes directly to Santa Monica, but I'm guessing this would be a small minority of people who would want to wait potentially much longer on one platform to avoid having to wait a strictly shorter amount of time on another platform. My prediction is that if Metro is documenting and advertising a specific operations plan, then that is the most likely outcome. These issues, though, are much less important than the existence of the connector in the first place. I am not sure if you read the advantages I listed for running alternating schedules. Sure, it doesn't make a difference whether you wait for the next train or wait at a different platform for a transfer. But...(1) You can time your departure and get on the right train from the start, eliminating the need to spend time for a transfer, therefore cutting the travel time. (2) If someone was coming from, say Long Beach and wanted to go to the Foothills, he/she would have to change trains at 7th/Metro and sometimes he/she would lose his/her seat and end up as a standee. With alternating schedules, the rider wouldn't have this problem. These two are both great advantages over having two lines with forced transfers. By offering lines without forced transfers, the travel time would be cut and more longer-distance riders would get a seated position, therefore increasing the overall ridership of the system. You would also reduce the congestion in the Downtown stations by reducing the transfers at these very busy stations. Therefore, there are several big advantages in running four lines: (1) shorter travel time, (2) more seated positions for long-distance riders, (3) eliminate forced transfer, (4) reduce congestion in Downtown stations, and (5) increase the ridership. The only minor disadvantage of having four lines instead of two is added schedule complexity.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 24, 2012 9:31:08 GMT -8
My opinion is that two fixed lines wouldn't be such a bad thing, but that it wouldn't make a big difference as some reasonable proportion of rides will involve a transfer regardless of the operations plan. Let's assume that they do a mixture of all 4 possible routes. If you're in Pasadena and want to get to Santa Monica, you're better off taking the first train that arrives on the platform even if it goes to Long Beach. You can then transfer after Little Tokyo and catch the next train to Santa Monica regardless of whether it originated in Pasadena or East LA. It turns out that wait time is one of the most important things in getting you where you want to go as fast as possible on transit. It could be that some people would want to wait a longer time on the platform in Pasadena to see if there would be a train that goes directly to Santa Monica, but I'm guessing this would be a small minority of people who would want to wait potentially much longer on one platform to avoid having to wait a strictly shorter amount of time on another platform. My prediction is that if Metro is documenting and advertising a specific operations plan, then that is the most likely outcome. These issues, though, are much less important than the existence of the connector in the first place. I am not sure if you read the advantages I listed for running alternating schedules. Sure, it doesn't make a difference whether you wait for the next train or wait at a different platform for a transfer. But...(1) You can time your departure and get on the right train from the start, eliminating the need to spend time for a transfer, therefore cutting the travel time. (2) If someone was coming from, say Long Beach and wanted to go to the Foothills, he/she would have to change trains at 7th/Metro and sometimes he/she would lose his/her seat and end up as a standee. With alternating schedules, the rider wouldn't have this problem. These two are both great advantages over having two lines with forced transfers. By offering lines without forced transfers, the travel time would be cut and more longer-distance riders would get a seated position, therefore increasing the overall ridership of the system. You would also reduce the congestion in the Downtown stations by reducing the transfers at these very busy stations. Therefore, there are several big advantages in running four lines: (1) shorter travel time, (2) more seated positions for long-distance riders, (3) eliminate forced transfer, (4) reduce congestion in Downtown stations, and (5) increase the ridership. The only minor disadvantage of having four lines instead of two is added schedule complexity. You are missing the disadvantages though as it is not all positives. Interlining and splitting trains seems good in theory but is usually a negative in practice. Say one commutes from Culver City to Little Tokyo or Long Beach to the Foothills as you used in your example. In the two line scenario, they can be assured of a train coming roughly every 6 minutes and taking them directly to their destination. In the trains split scenario, there will only be a train every 12 minutes so their headways just doubled. Of course, from a scheduling and operational standpoint sending trains in different directions creates a major problem for Operations as it is much more simple to operate 2 separate lines. I'd imagine you'd have much more train bunching and potentially big problems in the Connector, because of this. Look at the problems with the Blue/Expo connection and this is relatively simple compared to this scenario. The third major problem is that this creates confusion for the riders, especially those not frequently using the system. How do you show this on maps? How do you keep people from getting on the wrong trains? Just think of how much of a problem this is with the Purple/Red Lines and Expo/Blue and now triple it. There are ways to mitigate it, but this would still cause confusion. So you have to weigh these three major disadvantages against the benefit of not having forced transfers. As someone who would use the Expo Line to go to Pasadena occasionally (and would almost never want to go to East LA), I can see the allure, but overall feel the negatives greatly outweigh the benefit.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 24, 2012 9:40:31 GMT -8
I dread the day when every line has a little (R) is for Red Line, (G) is for Green Line, (G) is for Gold... (well, I'm sure they'll work something out... and tell Beverly Hills they'll be getting the "P" train). Just like NYC, the greatest, friendliest, cleanest subway system in the world! Are the colors really that hard to distinguish? Thankfully they should only need them for two stations: 7th/ Metro and Pico, since all other stations are one color only. And the Regional Connector? Bring the Blue Line to Pasadena like it was originally supposed to, and the Gold Line to crimson and gold USC (and the golden sand of Santa Monica) Beverly Hill should be getting the W(ilshire) line. Purple should just be the color of the circle. I really like this improvement because you can switch the E(xpo) line to the new gold circle without changing the name in the future after the Regional connector is completed. The East LA portion will still have the same color while the Mid City and West LA portion will still be called the E(xpo) line. Metro should just bite the bullet and flip the system now to actual names instead of colors. The sooner they roll out the new style the better. W(ilshire) with purple color H(ollywood) with red color E(xpo) with gold color L(long Beach) with blue color I(mperial) with green color C(renshaw) with ? color
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 10:02:22 GMT -8
You are missing the disadvantages though as it is not all positives. Interlining and splitting trains seems good in theory but is usually a negative in practice. Say one commutes from Culver City to Little Tokyo or Long Beach to the Foothills as you used in your example. In the two line scenario, they can be assured of a train coming roughly every 6 minutes and taking them directly to their destination. In the trains split scenario, there will only be a train every 12 minutes so their headways just doubled. Of course, from a scheduling and operational standpoint sending trains in different directions creates a major problem for Operations as it is much more simple to operate 2 separate lines. I'd imagine you'd have much more train bunching and potentially big problems in the Connector, because of this. Look at the problems with the Blue/Expo connection and this is relatively simple compared to this scenario. The third major problem is that this creates confusion for the riders, especially those not frequently using the system. How do you show this on maps? How do you keep people from getting on the wrong trains? Just think of how much of a problem this is with the Purple/Red Lines and Expo/Blue and now triple it. There are ways to mitigate it, but this would still cause confusion. So you have to weigh these three major disadvantages against the benefit of not having forced transfers. As someone who would use the Expo Line to go to Pasadena occasionally (and would almost never want to go to East LA), I can see the allure, but overall feel the negatives greatly outweigh the benefit. I mentioned the added complexity of the schedule, but this is only a minor disadvantage and confusing only to first-time riders. Also, transferring is equally or more confusing to first-time riders. The rest of what you said is not true. Trains through Downtown wouldn't run with 12-minute headways. They would run for example as LB/LB/SM/SM/LB/LB/SM/SM. On the average, you still get 3-minute wait time for LB or SM, with the LB or SM headway changing between 3 minutes minimum and 9 minutes maximum, so still 6 minutes headways on the average for LB or SM. With the two-line scenario, the headway for SM or LB would be 6 minutes uniformly as they would run LB/SM/LB/SM/LB/SM/LB/SM through Downtown, and the average headway (6 minutes) and wait time (3 minutes) would still be the same. Train-bunching assertion is also entirely incorrect. As I said, once a train is in the connector, the connector absolutely cannot tell the difference between an Expo and a Blue or a Gold and an Eastside train. Therefore, there is no change in train bunching from two to four lines at all.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 24, 2012 10:40:20 GMT -8
You are missing the disadvantages though as it is not all positives. Interlining and splitting trains seems good in theory but is usually a negative in practice. Say one commutes from Culver City to Little Tokyo or Long Beach to the Foothills as you used in your example. In the two line scenario, they can be assured of a train coming roughly every 6 minutes and taking them directly to their destination. In the trains split scenario, there will only be a train every 12 minutes so their headways just doubled. Of course, from a scheduling and operational standpoint sending trains in different directions creates a major problem for Operations as it is much more simple to operate 2 separate lines. I'd imagine you'd have much more train bunching and potentially big problems in the Connector, because of this. Look at the problems with the Blue/Expo connection and this is relatively simple compared to this scenario. The third major problem is that this creates confusion for the riders, especially those not frequently using the system. How do you show this on maps? How do you keep people from getting on the wrong trains? Just think of how much of a problem this is with the Purple/Red Lines and Expo/Blue and now triple it. There are ways to mitigate it, but this would still cause confusion. So you have to weigh these three major disadvantages against the benefit of not having forced transfers. As someone who would use the Expo Line to go to Pasadena occasionally (and would almost never want to go to East LA), I can see the allure, but overall feel the negatives greatly outweigh the benefit. I mentioned the added complexity of the schedule, but this is only a minor disadvantage and confusing only to first-time riders. Also, transferring is equally or more confusing to first-time riders. The rest of what you said is not true. Trains through Downtown wouldn't run with 12-minute headways. They would run for example as LB/LB/SM/SM/LB/LB/SM/SM. On the average, you still get 3-minute wait time for LB or SM, with the LB or SM headway changing between 3 minutes minimum and 9 minutes maximum, so still 6 minutes headways on the average for LB or SM. With the two-line scenario, the headway for SM or LB would be 6 minutes uniformly as they would run LB/SM/LB/SM/LB/SM/LB/SM through Downtown, and the average headway (6 minutes) and wait time (3 minutes) would still be the same. Train-bunching assertion is also entirely incorrect. As I said, once a train is in the connector, the connector absolutely cannot tell the difference between an Expo and a Blue or a Gold and an Eastside train. Therefore, there is no change in train bunching from two to four lines at all. If Expo has a minimum headway of 6 minutes and now half those trains are heading to Pasadena then that means the headway to the Eastside has to double (from the Westside). The only way to avoid that is to run more trains, but the connector is limited in how many trains can go through per hour. As far as bunching, some of this is already occuring at the junction apparently as Expo trains have to wait for Blue Line. Splitting lines makes the system less predictable and turn arounds and opeartions more difficult. Keeping a more simple system has its benefits. You state that only first time riders will be confused by getting on the wrong trains, but this happens to more experienced riders too on occasion if they aren't paying close attention to the headway sign.
|
|