|
Post by masonite on Jul 24, 2012 10:54:14 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. Overall, Metro needs to make a more reliable consistent system, which is why they have not embraced this split approach and have opted for the more simple two line system so far. As far as riders not being confused, unless you are paying close attention as the train rolls up to a station you may miss the front banner showing the destination. People get in Expo trains that they think are Blue Line trains and Purple vs. Red all the time and not just first time riders. Also, showing this on a map is going to be a mess. Headways will have to double in the example I have given. If Expo has 6 minute headways and now half those trains are headed to Pasadena instead of going East then that means those people going East just had their headway increased by 100%. There is no way around that unless you run more trains, but the Connector is limited in how many trains it can run per hour.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 10:55:43 GMT -8
It really doesn't matter if headways from Santa Monica to the Eastside double. In return, you get trains from Santa Monica to Chinatown, Union Station, and Pasadena, which you didn't have before. It's a bigger advantage.
Also, as I said, running four lines would reduce the congestion at the Downtown stations by reducing transfers there. This is a very significant advantage.
Recalculating the average wait time in Downtown for an SM or LB train, it would actually be 3 minutes and 45 seconds with four lines, instead of 3 minutes with two lines. So, OK, it's 45 seconds more wait in Downtown, corresponding to an average headway of 7 minutes 30 seconds instead of 6 minutes, but I think added benefits easily offset this. Besides, people can time their departures and still have shorter travel times.
So, would you be OK with separating the Purple and Red Lines and running the Red Line from north to south, instead of to the Union Station, with transfers at Wilshire/Vermont once they build the Vermont subway?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 24, 2012 11:16:15 GMT -8
Too much emphasis is being put on by continuing the Pasadena - East LA Gold Line segment, which is dumb, by keeeping the connector with 4 lines, instead of 1 N-S and 1 E-W line.
There are hardly people who use the Gold Line between Pasadena - East LA, it's a horseshoe of a line. It's faster for people to take the 30/330 into downtown from East LA or take a north-south line in the SGV.
Thus, it makes more operational sense and higher ridership to do a North-South Pasadena-Long Beach and a East-West Santa Monica - East LA.
Doing a East-East continuation of the Gold Line is worthless and will create a low volume connector line.
Plus, confusion is a big problem, not a "minor disadvantage" Gokhan. Just having a single E-W and N-S line is much easier to use. Plus, when trains run on headways of 6 - 10 minutes, people will just take the next train and ignore schedules. Most people just ignore schedules for rail lines anyways, unless if headways are greater than 15 minutes, which in your case, it will be.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 11:20:15 GMT -8
The long story short, Metro is a long way from building and starting up the Downtown Connector. Before that, Expo Phase 2 and Gold Line to Azusa, as well as their respective yards, must be built and new ridership and transfer patterns must be observed.
As I said, what's mentioned in the EIR -- the two-line option -- is only the first iteration in Metro's thought process. Having more flexibility could certainly bring a lot of advantages, such as reducing congestion in the Downtown stations in the post-connector era, which will be a major problem. With added flexibility, you can also better suit the lines to the riders's needs. The Downtown Connector itself doesn't care whether it's two or four lines, as it's technically blind when it comes to two or four lines and can't tell the difference. It's only a Metro operational and scheduling issue and nothing else.
Therefore, at this point, it's speculation and certainly open to discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 11:26:04 GMT -8
Too much emphasis is being put on by continuing the Pasadena - East LA Gold Line segment, which is dumb, by keeeping the connector with 4 lines, instead of 1 N-S and 1 E-W line. There are hardly people who use the Gold Line between Pasadena - East LA, it's a horseshoe of a line. It's faster for people to take the 30/330 into downtown from East LA or take a north-south line in the SGV. Thus, it makes more operational sense and higher ridership to do a North-South Pasadena-Long Beach and a East-West Santa Monica - East LA. Doing a East-East continuation of the Gold Line is worthless and will create a low volume connector line. Plus, confusion is a big problem, not a "minor disadvantage" Gokhan. Just having a single E-W and N-S line is much easier to use. Plus, when trains run on headways of 6 - 10 minutes, people will just take the next train and ignore schedules. Most people just ignore schedules for rail lines anyways, unless if headways are greater than 15 minutes, which in your case, it will be. I don't know why you are bringing up an Eastside - Azusa Line. We've never mentioned that. We're only talking about SM - Azusa, SM - East LA, LB - Azusa, and LB - East LA -- four lines in total. An Azusa - East LA Line is impractical in the post-connector era. The headway within the Downtown Connector for a given destination would be 7.5 minutes on the average (alternating between 3 minutes minimum and 9 minutes maximum, such as SM/SM/LB/LB/SM/SM/LB/LB) with four lines, instead of uniformly 6 minutes (such as SM/LB/SM/LB) with two lines. I don't know where the "greater than 15 minutes" comes from.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jul 24, 2012 11:40:55 GMT -8
Actually the longest headway outside the connector would probably be 12 mins.
If a person happens to miss their pasadena bound train at Culver City and will only ride if they don't have to transfer then that person must wait for a whole 12 minutes for the next pasadena bound train to arrive.
Also from what I can see with the 4 line set-up the Pasadena bound trains from either Blue or Expo will probably be more crowded than their East La bound counterparts. This would hinder an even distrubtion of passengers on the trains in either branch.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 24, 2012 17:03:10 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that Bruce Shelbourne said that running multiple services for each line was very unlikely. Look at the problems with train timing at the existing junction. After the connector opens then you have that times two!
Maybe he will touch on that again tonight.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 24, 2012 19:30:53 GMT -8
I was thinking of existing systems in Boston, Philadelphia and San Franciso. They all start with a downtown "trunk" and branch out, in all cases in a generally westward direction. The only operation I can think of that goes in several directions from downtown is the Chicago "L" system. The Dallas system comes to mind, but that's one I haven't ridden yet. (I'm omitting the New York subway system because it's about an order of magnitude more complex than anything else in the US.)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 24, 2012 20:24:02 GMT -8
I was thinking of existing systems in Boston, Philadelphia and San Franciso. They all start with a downtown "trunk" and branch out, in all cases in a generally westward direction. The only operation I can think of that goes in several directions from downtown is the Chicago "L" system. The Dallas system comes to mind, but that's one I haven't ridden yet. (I'm omitting the New York subway system because it's about an order of magnitude more complex than anything else in the US.) No need to look away further, just look back to the past and remember Pacific Electric. Actually there is a whole theory on how the rail lines are structured and it can be found in this thread on this board.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 24, 2012 20:50:58 GMT -8
Bruce again reiterated that the plan is N/S and E/W because those are the predominant travel patterns.
Also he said that renaming the lines to letters (likely A,B,C, etc) is coming soon. The old names will go away completely.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 25, 2012 10:53:44 GMT -8
Gokhan's suggestion makes sense if you believe most passengers terminate in Downtown and do not ride-thru (e.g. Pasadena to Downtown, Long Beach to Downtown, Santa Monica to Downtown, East LA to Downtown). For the minority of passengers that is riding the line beyond Downtown (e.g. Pasadena to Santa Monica, East LA to Long Beach), this makes an attractive option of 1-seat ride without transfer. And since in this scenario, most riders at getting on/off in Downtown, the split line doesn't increase effective headway - from Metro Center, there will still be the same frequency of trains going to Santa Monica... they just came from different places.
However, I think travel pattern likely will not support his vision. In the post-regional connector era, I think we will see a much higher ratio of passengers going cross town and ending their trip in Downtown. In this situation, having split lines create much longer headways at the outer stations. Instead of every 6 minute headway from East LA to Santa Monica, you will have a 12 minute headway (the other train is going to Long Beach). In this case, it is much better to have consistent 6 minute headway of East LA to Santa Monica and transfer in Downtown for equally consistent 6 minute headway of Pasadena to Long Beach train.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 25, 2012 11:57:44 GMT -8
Gokhan's suggestion makes sense if you believe most passengers terminate in Downtown and do not ride-thru (e.g. Pasadena to Downtown, Long Beach to Downtown, Santa Monica to Downtown, East LA to Downtown). For the minority of passengers that is riding the line beyond Downtown (e.g. Pasadena to Santa Monica, East LA to Long Beach), this makes an attractive option of 1-seat ride without transfer. And since in this scenario, most riders at getting on/off in Downtown, the split line doesn't increase effective headway - from Metro Center, there will still be the same frequency of trains going to Santa Monica... they just came from different places. However, I think travel pattern likely will not support his vision. In the post-regional connector era, I think we will see a much higher ratio of passengers going cross town and ending their trip in Downtown. In this situation, having split lines create much longer headways at the outer stations. Instead of every 6 minute headway from East LA to Santa Monica, you will have a 12 minute headway (the other train is going to Long Beach). In this case, it is much better to have consistent 6 minute headway of East LA to Santa Monica and transfer in Downtown for equally consistent 6 minute headway of Pasadena to Long Beach train. In the two-line scenario, the headways to SM, LB, FH, and EE would be 6 minutes uniformly. This corresponds to an average wait time of 3 minutes. In the four-line scenario, the headways to SM, LB, FH, and EE would vary between 3 minutes and 9 minutes, with an average of 7.5 minutes. This corresponds to an average wait time of 3 minutes and 45 seconds, only 45 seconds longer than in the two-line scenario. The two main advantages of the four-line scenario are (1) to reduce congestion in the Downtown Stations by reducing the transfers there and (2) to ensure that long-distance riders get seated regardless of their destination.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 25, 2012 12:05:58 GMT -8
The only minor disadvantage of having four lines instead of two is added schedule complexity. But that's just it, though. It would make future connections planned for the Regional Connector, such as the Santa Ana branch corridor and the Yellow Line (via Glendale blvd), too difficult to implement. And really, it's all the more reason to build a Regional Connector II down Alameda. See, this is the kind of forward thinking and long-term planning we need in order to avoid messes like the Wilshire/Vermont station. I really hope everyone here listens and understands that.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 25, 2012 12:36:38 GMT -8
So, would you be OK with separating the Purple and Red Lines and running the Red Line from north to south, instead of to the Union Station, with transfers at Wilshire/Vermont once they build the Vermont subway? Actually, i would, because replacing the current Red line route should still be possible if the Vermont Corridor doesn't intersect with the Wilshire/Vermont station, assuming the "third platform" alternative presented by the wilshirevermont.com blog was applied. It would share tracks with the N-S Red Line north of Wilshire, and share tracks with the E-W Purple Line east of Vermont. Of course, you would have to give it a new color. EDIT: Here's something along the lines of what i'm talking about: maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=200477410612414767690.0004c5ae604d4d30916ae&msa=0&ll=34.063095,-118.291522&spn=0.005519,0.011169
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2012 14:03:52 GMT -8
Bruce again reiterated that the plan is N/S and E/W because those are the predominant travel patterns. Also he said that renaming the lines to letters (likely A,B,C, etc) is coming soon. The old names will go away completely. I'll be interested to see the video of the meeting on YouTube. My hope is that if we are going to use letters, lets use ones that are a little intuitive like W for Wilshire (current Purple Line) and E for Expo-Eastside and so forth. Doing A,B,C, D makes no more sense than that, but we'll see as this topic is endlessly debated.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 25, 2012 17:18:21 GMT -8
Bruce again reiterated that the plan is N/S and E/W because those are the predominant travel patterns. Also he said that renaming the lines to letters (likely A,B,C, etc) is coming soon. The old names will go away completely. I'll be interested to see the video of the meeting on YouTube. My hope is that if we are going to use letters, lets use ones that are a little intuitive like W for Wilshire (current Purple Line) and E for Expo-Eastside and so forth. Doing A,B,C, D makes no more sense than that, but we'll see as this topic is endlessly debated. He was using an example of calling the lines letters that correspond to existing names (R,B,E, etc) and then said that in actuality Metro's current preference was A,B,C,D,E...going in order of when the lines opened. He kept saying jokingly that we should get ready to be like NYC.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 25, 2012 18:21:48 GMT -8
I was thinking of existing systems in Boston, Philadelphia and San Franciso. They all start with a downtown "trunk" and branch out, in all cases in a generally westward direction. This is exactly why I hate the idea of "flexibility" and branching out in too many directions. Every time I have ever visited San Francisco and taken Muni, I have been frustrated/ annoyed by needing to take (for example) the N-Judah and watching lots of J, K, L and M trains go by. The same thing goes for BART with its branching. Plus, if anything goes wrong underneath Market, it screws the whole system up. Give me a city with lots of spaghetti lines and limited branching over a city with lots and lots of branch lines and one "trunk" any day. With Long Beach-Pasadena and East Los Angeles-Santa Monica, I should expect to reasonably see every other train be going in the right direction, same as with the Red/ Purple lines.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 26, 2012 18:38:48 GMT -8
Regarding applying letter designations to rail lines in order of opening. This was true in San Francisco in the first half of the last century, with the J, K, L, M, and N being the survivors of the Great Bustitution of the 1947-56 period. Now we have the F-Market line (which doesn't follow the original F line), and the T-Third St. line with a designation more in the Los Angeles tradition (P-Pico Blvd, V-Vernon and Vermont). One question would be, do we apply letters in opening-day sequence regardless of type ("light" or "heavy")? Or would it be like New York, where numbers indicate IRT lines, letters A through G are IND, and L through R are BMT. Note that IRT, IND and BMT were all folded into one agency about 70 years ago, but many New Yorkers still use the old initials.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 26, 2012 20:10:05 GMT -8
One question would be, do we apply letters in opening-day sequence regardless of type ("light" or "heavy")? My impression was that he meant regardless of type because at some point he made reference to the existing numbers (901, 902, 903, etc) following the order of opening and those are regardless of type.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 27, 2012 0:29:23 GMT -8
I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. I can't fathom the rush to alphabetization. Give a rail line a name such as "Long Beach Line" and I can figure out where it goes. With the current color system, I can look at a map and point to each color and know: oh, this blue line must indicate the Blue Line. Some cities even color-code their equipment to match the colors used on maps and signs. I saw that in Tokyo all the time. But A, B, C, D has no meaning to it. Even "L is for Long Beach" requires the user to know that "L" is an abbreviation. By themselves, letters are much more user- unfriendly than colors for maps and signs. Why bother with it?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 27, 2012 2:02:57 GMT -8
Also he said that renaming the lines to letters (likely A,B,C, etc) is coming soon. The old names will go away completely. ...Just like how longtime New Yorkers have stopped using the "IND" "IRT" and "BMT" completely (i.e. they haven't)
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 27, 2012 2:08:25 GMT -8
He was using an example of calling the lines letters that correspond to existing names (R,B,E, etc) and then said that in actuality Metro's current preference was A,B,C,D,E...going in order of when the lines opened. Because if you went with the former example, you'll run into the inevitable problem of which line to call the "G" Line... (or would it be Gr and Go lines?)
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 27, 2012 2:15:22 GMT -8
But A, B, C, D has no meaning to it. Even "L is for Long Beach" requires the user to know that "L" is an abbreviation. By themselves, letters are much more user- unfriendly than colors for maps and signs. Why bother with it? Did numbering the lines 2 or 4 or 10 or 33 have any meaning to it? Apparently after nearly 50 years, no one's had a problem with that. If we had 26 rail lines already in operation, then I would totally see your point. But we only have six distinct lines in operation for at least the next five or so years, people will get used to lines A-F, with different color gradients on maps. It's not the end of the world, man.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 27, 2012 9:12:02 GMT -8
But A, B, C, D has no meaning to it. Even "L is for Long Beach" requires the user to know that "L" is an abbreviation. By themselves, letters are much more user- unfriendly than colors for maps and signs. Why bother with it? Did numbering the lines 2 or 4 or 10 or 33 have any meaning to it? Apparently after nearly 50 years, no one's had a problem with that. If we had 26 rail lines already in operation, then I would totally see your point. But we only have six distinct lines in operation for at least the next five or so years, people will get used to lines A-F, with different color gradients on maps. It's not the end of the world, man. Actually, the numbering system used by Metro does have a meaning. It's a radial numbering scheme and each set of 100 numbers are for certain categories. For example, 1-99 = bus goes to Downtown LA, with routes numbers going in a counterclockwise fashion.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 27, 2012 10:10:44 GMT -8
I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. I can't fathom the rush to alphabetization. Give a rail line a name such as "Long Beach Line" and I can figure out where it goes. With the current color system, I can look at a map and point to each color and know: oh, this blue line must indicate the Blue Line. Some cities even color-code their equipment to match the colors used on maps and signs. I saw that in Tokyo all the time. But A, B, C, D has no meaning to it. Even "L is for Long Beach" requires the user to know that "L" is an abbreviation. By themselves, letters are much more user- unfriendly than colors for maps and signs. Why bother with it? We should keep the name of the line as Long Beach. We are just discussing how it should presented on signage. A blue circle with "L" is the most logical presentation for the Long Beach line - consistent with existing color scheme and will accommodate future expansion in case we need to add different service modes on the same line (e.g. truncated short lines that won't go the entire length from Long Beach to Azusa).
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 27, 2012 11:06:36 GMT -8
Did numbering the lines 2 or 4 or 10 or 33 have any meaning to it? Apparently after nearly 50 years, no one's had a problem with that. If we had 26 rail lines already in operation, then I would totally see your point. But we only have six distinct lines in operation for at least the next five or so years, people will get used to lines A-F, with different color gradients on maps. It's not the end of the world, man. Actually, the numbering system used by Metro does have a meaning. It's a radial numbering scheme and each set of 100 numbers are for certain categories. For example, 1-99 = bus goes to Downtown LA, with routes numbers going in a counterclockwise fashion. ...And do you expect the hundreds of thousands of bus riders to know that already? Just sayin.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jul 27, 2012 13:16:24 GMT -8
I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE. I can't fathom the rush to alphabetization. Give a rail line a name such as "Long Beach Line" and I can figure out where it goes. With the current color system, I can look at a map and point to each color and know: oh, this blue line must indicate the Blue Line. Some cities even color-code their equipment to match the colors used on maps and signs. I saw that in Tokyo all the time. But A, B, C, D has no meaning to it. Even "L is for Long Beach" requires the user to know that "L" is an abbreviation. By themselves, letters are much more user- unfriendly than colors for maps and signs. Why bother with it? Wilshire Line.. Hollywood Line... Expo/Eastside Line... Pasadena/Long Beach Line... Valley/Westside Line... Not sure what the Green Line would be: the Imperial Line? the Century Line? I guess on maps and some signage and stuff you could relegate it to letters. Like the Purple Line would have a purple square with a 'W' inside or something.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jul 27, 2012 14:33:23 GMT -8
Do the rail lines already have assigned numbers for operational purposes?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 27, 2012 15:25:40 GMT -8
It's not the end of the world, man. Actually, I've noticed that naming stuff, train names, station names and colors seem to be "push button" topics on this board. In the grand scheme of things, these topics don't make much of a difference; however they do affect how we interact with Metro in a very personal way as customers of Metro and residents of Southern California. I want to know that Little Tokyo will have a Little Tokyo station on the Regional Connector, and not just the impersonal "1st/ Central". I want to know what the signs and maps will look like. Personally, I find the colors that Metro has chosen to be aesthetically pleasing. So no, it's not the end of the world. But it is something we have opinions on. I do think that numbers make sense for bus lines. You can't expect that many bus routes to be represented by colors, letters or even names. It would be impossible. But there are still plenty of colors available. Ask Tokyo if we can borrow some of theirs. Or London's.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 27, 2012 16:01:11 GMT -8
Actually, the numbering system used by Metro does have a meaning. It's a radial numbering scheme and each set of 100 numbers are for certain categories. For example, 1-99 = bus goes to Downtown LA, with routes numbers going in a counterclockwise fashion. ...And do you expect the hundreds of thousands of bus riders to know that already? Just sayin. Nope. The categories do help though, most riders realize a 700 series line for instance is a Rapid Line. Don't get me wrong though, I prefer arbitrary A-Z for our rail network.
|
|