bahg
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by bahg on Nov 27, 2009 20:45:46 GMT -8
When the connector is completed will it be possible to take the gold line Pasadena to Culver City and not have to switch trains. I always read about Pasadena to Long Beach and East LA to Culver City but never hear Pasadena to Culver City or East LA to Long Beach or Long Beach to Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 27, 2009 20:54:58 GMT -8
I think that officially that's still an option. Unofficially they usually reference strictly north-south and east-west lines. The strictly E/W and N/S option makes the most sense to me even though the line lengths are out of balance as the N/S line will be twice as long as the E/W.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 28, 2009 2:30:39 GMT -8
There's also a question of wait times.
If you have trains going from Pasadena to Long Beach, Pasadena to East Los Angeles/Whittier and Pasadena to Culver City/Santa Monica, obviously you're dividing up the trains amongst three destinations.
Ultimately, I think the Regional Connector, although better than having all passengers switch via the Red Line, will eventually also prove to be less efficient than splitting up the trains completely and having two or more routes through downtown, as other cities have.
Of course, we're talking years ahead into the future, unless a sudden influx of cash makes new construction easier to build.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 28, 2009 12:12:30 GMT -8
There is no question of wait times since all of the trains can run at the same headways. They'll just need to run more trains for the longer route to achieve that.
I don't think that the connector will be inefficient. It'll pretty much max out the number of intervals that can be run on two tracks. That makes up for the fact that it doesn't hold as many passengers as the subway trains. They'll need every bit of that if/when the HSR is built. If anything the mistake is that the connector will be the best route to the business district and it's too low of a capacity for the long term. Metrolink riders are going to flock to the connector.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 29, 2009 0:02:16 GMT -8
bluelineshaw, you are right. The Connector could definitely become overloaded. Light rail can theoretically run with 1 minute headways, but only if there are never any disruptions. You need either full grade separations or exclusive right-of-way with protected intersections (gates) or no vehicle cross-traffic. Basically, those are Regional Rail or Metro Rail standards. The Blue line or Expo Line probably cannot operate more often than every 2 to 3 minutes or so even if they had separate routes downtown. But with the connector, trains every 5 minutes on each line will be the best possible, and may lead to problems. If we expect more than 10,000 people going one way in the peak hour, we might have a problem
If the regional connector could be build with four tracks, it might be possible to run trains every 2.5 minutes on both lines, doubling capacity and increasing reliability. Of course, current New Starts cost-effectiveness criteria probably will not support such an expensive project at this time.
We may find that it will make more sense to build a third downtown subway anyway. If we every want Metrolink or High-Speed Rail service to Long Beach, San Pedro or the South Bay, another subway from Union station south along Alameda could be very beneficial, if built for both long-distance trains and light rail. On other threads we have already talked about the possibility of extending the Purple line straight east to Whittier, and "Get LA Moving" (by Damien Goodmon) suggests a new subway for the Blue Line. And if we every want a complete rail system, like Tokyo or New York or London, we will need several more subways downtown to connect new east-west and north-south lines.
Too bad the current planning process is not designed to look 50 or 100 years in the future.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 5, 2010 17:37:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 5, 2010 17:49:59 GMT -8
bluelineshaw, you are right. The Connector could definitely become overloaded. If it's overloaded(more likely between Union Station and 7th Street) a few of the stations could be relieved through redundancy by the Red/Purple Line or operating a shuttle train between Union Station and Bunker Hill. If there seems to be a greater demand for Union Station-7th Street or Bunker Hill for those Metrolink trips it is very easy to operate a shuttle train between these two points as it may operate completely un-interrupted by outside traffic, increasing the capacity all that should be advocated for in the Regional Connector tunnel is a pocket track between the current 7th Street Metro Center and proposed Central Library stations. We can run trains on a two track line on as short a headway as 90 seconds on a two track line with appropriate facilities (track crossovers and switches, automatic train operation, moving block signaling) building the four track corridor would be overkill for this corridor. However as you mentioned there may will be a need for a third Downtown subway when it comes who knows but it is eventual. It would be nice to serve another area of Downtown as Downtown is so large.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 6, 2010 18:20:05 GMT -8
Jerard, a downtown shuttle would increase capacity downtown but not on the 4 radial segments, where I see the capacity being too low at rush hour with 3-car trains. Also, unless the trains get better signal pre-emption in Long Beach and East LA, the scheduling and headways may not be reliable enough to run trains more often than every 2.5 minutes thru downtown.
3 car trains carrying 600 people every 5 minutes is 8000 per hour per direction. I can imagine more than 10,000 people wanting to get from Culver City and Mid-City to Downtown at 8 am in 2050, and from South LA to Downtown too.
Building the stations for 4-car trains and getting 100% signal priority in Long Beach and other street-running segments might get us down to 2 minute headways (4 minutes on each line), increasing capacity to 12,000 people per direction per hour. Perhaps that, and some 3-track cross-over segments north of 7th street and west of Little Tokyo, would be enough to keep people from being crush-loaded.
But it is a shame if the 2-mile segment in downtown ends up limiting capacity for 60 miles of rail by 50%.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 6, 2010 18:25:19 GMT -8
But I again agree with a 3rd downtown subway or elevated alignment, especially if it lets Metrolink expand to the South and West and serve Downtown more directly. The regional railroads around New York (LIRR, Metro North, etc) are so successful because they go right to the center of the city. Paris has it even better, with trains passing through and branching off in both directions to the suburbs and edge cities. Metrolink would be a much bigger asset with electrification and stations in the financial center and the westside.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 6, 2010 22:01:41 GMT -8
Jerard, a downtown shuttle would increase capacity downtown but not on the 4 radial segments, where I see the capacity being too low at rush hour with 3-car trains. I'm replying to your comment of the worry that the Metrolink/HSR passengers needing to transfer to the LRT at Union Station. The last sentence in your post is not congruent with everything else you just said also overlooking technolgies that are in use right now in subway sections such as Moving Block Signals and Automatic Train Operation also it proves that the outer ends of the lines are what will limit that capacity, its not the subway section of the Regional Connector. However there are small pieces that can increase throughput capacity that we can learn from other cities with LRT such as Calgary.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 7, 2010 15:54:18 GMT -8
I don't see how a shuttle would work when there will only be one track in each direction and no additional platforms or side tracks at 7th/metro or Union Station are being planned. Can you explain?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 20, 2010 10:59:19 GMT -8
BluelineShawn, The reference to the Downtown shuttle was in response to the hypothesis originally made, an example as to how they operate is in the Muni Metro between Embarcadero and Castro before the T-Third Street line opened. Jerard, a downtown shuttle would increase capacity downtown but not on the 4 radial segments, where I see the capacity being too low at rush hour with 3-car trains. Also, unless the trains get better signal pre-emption in Long Beach and East LA, the scheduling and headways may not be reliable enough to run trains more often than every 2.5 minutes thru downtown. 3 car trains carrying 600 people every 5 minutes is 8000 per hour per direction. I can imagine more than 10,000 people wanting to get from Culver City and Mid-City to Downtown at 8 am in 2050, and from South LA to Downtown too... But it is a shame if the 2-mile segment in downtown ends up limiting capacity for 60 miles of rail by 50%. That would be the case if that is the only lines we will ever do again, however one of the strengths of a transit network is preventive redundancy. Preventive Redundancy can be promoted in two ways, SPINES AND NETS SPINES >-=========-< What you're suggesting the SINGLE 4 track corridor SPINE for Downtown to enable trips through is one way to approach this. Spines work when mutiple trips on the outer ends are funneled through a central corridor. NETS or WEBS--+--+---
The other way is to develop away from a SPINE arrangement and develop more of a NET or WEB, where core destinations or centers will have more than one line and one way to reach a destination. In the case of Mid-City passengers and promoting growth of the Regional transit network and developing the Web arrangement will encourage flexibilty in trip movements, that would come in the form of the Crenshaw Corridor continuing to meet with the Purple Line and the building of the Purple Line Westward towards the Ocean. This will do two key things; 1) Free-up capacity for a potentially over-utilized Expo, 2) Utilize under-utilized capacity in the off-peak direction in other corridors even with a transfer mid stream. Now if these pieces still don't relieve capacity other methods such as improving Interior Layout design for passengers to improve and increase capacity per train car.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 8, 2010 13:21:59 GMT -8
I sort of suspect that they will be turning back trains, but on the other side of Pasadena Continuing from the HSR thread... That could very well be the case. Initially 3-car trains every 5 minutes all the way to Sierra Madre would be a much higher service level than necessary (more than double current service), but hopefully the connector would help that balance out within a couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Aug 8, 2010 14:44:41 GMT -8
When I was sketching out potential operations for the DTC, I assumed that the yard leads north of Chinatown would be used to turn back some north-south trains. But you have to be careful here: the Flower Street section can only accommodate 20 trains per hour in each direction from Long Beach and Santa Monica, and if those are split evenly between Pasadena and Eastside, and half of the Pasadena trains are turned at Chinatown, then you end up with 12 minute headways and fewer cars per hour than current service. Perhaps it would make sense to have one third of the Pasadena Branch trains terminate at Chinatown, one third in Pasadena, and one third in Azusa. Or split the service on the north/east side three ways, with one third of trains going to the Eastside, one third to Pasadena/Azusa, and one third terminating at Chinatown. One other nice aspect of the Gold Line yard is that it's the perfect place to store trains between the peaks, as is the Expo Layover Facility on the south side.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 8, 2010 17:12:34 GMT -8
I was thinking along the same lines. What I was thinking was that 1/3 of the trains from Expo could be routed towards Pasadena so that you have 16 tph through the connector at rush hour. 4 tph could then be turned at Chinatown to maintain the same headway in reverse. Or alternatively given that I think that more LAUS riders that ride past downtown would ride Expo than the blue line it makes more sense to me to have the blue line routed to East LA and Expo to LAUS. In that instance 1/3 of the blue line trains would go towards Pasadena.
But the problem that I see is that logistically it would be hard to maintain especially with the bottleneck along Flower. What I think will happen is that initially and until such a time as increased service levels on the connector become a necessity (HSR up and running) they will just keep the pattern simple and run blue line trains to Sierra Madre or depending on whether there is a new yard, all the way to there.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 9, 2010 12:08:20 GMT -8
One of the more unfortunate choices made when designing the Gold Line was naming the present Pasadena terminal "Sierra Madre Villa". The post above says "run blue line trains to Sierra Madre..." It would have been less confusing to name it "East Pasadena" (historically correct) or even "Pasadena East". The City of Sierra Madre lost Pacific Electric rail service in 1950, and not even the most optimistic LA rail system plans have trains going through the town in the foreseeable future. And current plans call for the new yard, in either Irwindale or Monrovia, to be in service before the Downtown Connector is completed.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Aug 9, 2010 23:55:36 GMT -8
In terms of yards, by the time the Regional Connector is built, there will be five yards of various sizes around the now-unified light rail network: the existing Blue Line yard in Carson, the Gold Line yard by the LA River, the new maintenance facility that is to be built in Irwindale or Azusa, the future Expo yard in Santa Monica, and the Expo Layover Facility around the Washington station on the Blue Line. The Green Line is its own mostly independent operation, but if it's extended and requires more trains, it might need more yard space than it currently has available, which could be addressed either by building a new yard north of LAX (assuming it's extended) or borrowing yard space from the Blue Line, now that Metro has new light rail cars can switch lines easily.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 11, 2010 21:53:50 GMT -8
Good point Bob. I'm not from the area and I tend to think of the station as being in "Sierra Madre", instead of being on Sierra Madre Villa. It is an unfortunate choice considering how close Sierra Madre is to the station.
crzwdjk, are you sure that LA will have cars that can run on multiple lines? IIRC when Metro was going at it with Breda over deficiencies on the P2550's (narrow seats, car weight, etc) that one of the deficiencies was that the P2550's won't run on all lines. I also seem to recall that Metro conceded that some junior person at Metro made the decision to change the specs.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 13, 2010 0:59:38 GMT -8
I'd just like to point out that if the Downtown Connector were routed such that Expo was connected to the Pasadena Gold line, then you would be able to take the train from Colorado Ave. to Colorado Blvd. ;D
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 9, 2010 15:00:35 GMT -8
And current plans call for the new yard, in either Irwindale or Monrovia, to be in service before the Downtown Connector is completed. ...the new maintenance facility that is to be built in Irwindale or Azusa... The maintenance facility (the "Regional Maintenance and Operations Facility") is going to be in Monrovia. (See here and here.) Unless something has changed that I didn't hear about. The Gold Line Authority is now completing the environmental clearance for it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 9, 2010 15:35:38 GMT -8
BTW, the new Monrovia yard will be a major facility (like the Long Beach facility) with capacity for 80-100 cars.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 9, 2010 18:20:31 GMT -8
I'd just like to point out that if the Downtown Connector were routed such that Expo was connected to the Pasadena Gold line, then you would be able to take the train from Colorado Ave. to Colorado Blvd. ;D Just another reason to be careful about station names. On Monrovia Yard: Just one of the many side effects of building a growing transit system. I'm sure Monrovia will get many new jobs from it.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 10, 2010 3:59:29 GMT -8
On Monrovia Yard: Just one of the many side effects of building a growing transit system. I'm sure Monrovia will get many new jobs from it. Metro divisions are pretty labor intensive, but ... ... they tend to be in industrial clusters, so the effect of workers shopping or eating will be muted as the pickings are slim, and ... ... even if there were places for workers to spend money, Metro divisions are at their busiest during the owl period when these places won't be open.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 10, 2010 5:50:55 GMT -8
This location is very industrial, on California between Duarte Road and the 210 Freeway. The shopping and eating area is less than half a mile away on Huntington.
wad, you're probably right that the economic effect might not be localized to Monrovia. In any case, there will be an economic effect, even if it is spread around the region.
I understand about half of that huge block is owned by the City of Monrovia, and the rest is private. Total cost to construct the M&O facility (and purchase land) is estimated at $53 million.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Jan 18, 2011 19:30:31 GMT -8
I'd just like to point out that if the Downtown Connector were routed such that Expo was connected to the Pasadena Gold line, then you would be able to take the train from Colorado Ave. to Colorado Blvd. ;D Wouldn't be possible to assign letter designations according to whether the train will run the entire east-west route, or else turn north or south at the junction? So if you're standing on the platform at Venice/Robertson maybe the A train would be the one that eventually goes to Pasadena, the B train would go to East L.A., and the C train would go to Long Beach? Today, of all the people who use the Green Line, how many ride straight through the transfer point at Wilmington/Imperial versus transferring to reach Long Beach or downtown L.A.? Judging from the crowds at Wilmington, I'd be surprised if more riders didn't transfer there, then travel straight through to Norwalk or Redondo.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 22:44:53 GMT -8
Wouldn't be possible to assign letter designations according to whether the train will run the entire east-west route, or else turn north or south at the junction? So if you're standing on the platform at Venice/Robertson maybe the A train would be the one that eventually goes to Pasadena, the B train would go to East L.A., and the C train would go to Long Beach? Today, of all the people who use the Green Line, how many ride straight through the transfer point at Wilmington/Imperial versus transferring to reach Long Beach or downtown L.A.? Judging from the crowds at Wilmington, I'd be surprised if more riders didn't transfer there, then travel straight through to Norwalk or Redondo. I don't think Metro would ever consider running every possible combination of trains. What is the cost vs. benefit? The cost is a more complicated system, for operators and for users. The benefit would be that you don't have to transfer trains, but is that such a big deal? Especially in the Downtown Connector, where all trains will share the platform, transfers will be as easy as stepping off of train #1, then waiting for train #2. No stairs or walking involved. And anyway, the more complicated scheme offers no time savings on your trip, since you would likely have to wait longer to get just the right train for your destination. I think Metro's view will be that the extra complexity is not worth the slight convenience of not having to transfer.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Mar 4, 2014 13:23:00 GMT -8
Now as I understand it the only possible route that wont be possible (without some complicated track switching) is EAST LA to PASADENA and vice-versa (ironically the only one that can be done now) .....
... and running trains from PASADENA to SANTA MONICA may not make work out if the BLUE LINE already needs more trains in the LONG BEACH portion than PASADENA section....
.. but since apparently the current EXPO and LONG BEACH BLUE LINE sections will have more frequent trains than PASADENA and EAST LA sections.. there will be some short line LONG BEACH TO DTLA and SANTA MONICA to DTLA trains, correct? definitely the BOTH of these need to short line to Union Station. Even thought the SANTA MONICA to EAST LA GOLD LINE, technically doesn't go to Union Station, any short line from SANTA MONICA to DTLA should go up to UNION STATION instead of ending at LITTLE TOKYO. Is this currently planned?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 4, 2014 14:00:03 GMT -8
I could see Metro running "special" trains that do not follow the east-west/north-south alignments for major or special events.
"Want to go to the L.A. Festival of Books? If you're coming from Pasadena, Metro will be run special trains that will run directly there without need for a transfer."
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 4, 2014 16:17:47 GMT -8
Now as I understand it the only possible route that wont be possible (without some complicated track switching) is EAST LA to PASADENA and vice-versa (ironically the only one that can be done now) ..... The project EIR states that existing Gold line tracks at the surface and the current Little Tokyo station will be maintained so Metro can definitely run trains from East LA to Pasadena if it wants. The only thing is that it won't stop at the new underground Little Tokyo Station so transfer to the other lines will be difficult. For that reason, I believe Metro will not run East LA to Pasadena train for revenue service. But expect plenty of trains to still go from Union Station to East LA for positioning runs. But Metro can for sure run special trains during events at Rose Bowl or for the Rose Parade from East LA to Pasadena. This will not be difficult at all. You are basically correct... there will be an imbalance of demand on the Blue line. So here is where things get really complicated. I think someone on these board already made a fairly detailed calculation. I seem to recall the peak throughput rate on Regional Connector is something like 3 minutes headway so you can run alternating Blue line and Expo line train every six minutes: 00:03 Blue 00:06 Expo 00:09 Blue 00:12 Expo And so on... So if Metro wants to provide more than 6 minutes headway on any part of the line, it will need to run short lines. Assuming the Foothill segment can continue support existing 6 minute headway with 2 car train, it means Metro will definitely need to add Long Beach to Downtown LA short lines because the current Blue line is already running 3 car trains every 6 minutes at peak time. And my educated guess is the short line will terminate at 7th Street Metro Center instead Union Station due to the pocket track that will be constructed between 4th St and 6 St. That's the most logical place to turn the train to go back to Long Beach. As for short line between Santa Monica and Downtown LA, I don't really see any need for it. The East LA portion is relatively short so you are not saving a lot of vehicle service hours by running a short line. You can probably run a 2 car train every 6 minutes from Santa Monica to East LA without overcrowding. A likely service pattern: F line: Azusa to Long Beach - Off peak: 2 car train every 6 minutes; Peak: 3 car train every 6 minutes L line: 7th Street Metro Center to Long Beach - Peak: 3 car train every 6 minutes E line: Santa Monica to East LA - Off peak: 2 car train every 6 minutes; peak 3 car train every 6 minutes Under this service pattern, the current Blue line (7th St to Long Beach) will see off peak service every 6 minutes and peak service every 3 minutes (vs. currently 10 minutes off-peak / 5 minutes peak) The current Gold line (both East side and Pasadena) will have the same level of service as now - 6 minutes pretty much all the time (except for very early morning and very late night hours) The current Expo line will have 6 minute service(vs. currently 10 minutes off-peak, 12 minutes peak) on the assumption that ridership will increase once Santa Monica segment opens.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 4, 2014 18:34:38 GMT -8
Now as I understand it the only possible route that wont be possible (without some complicated track switching) is EAST LA to PASADENA and vice-versa (ironically the only one that can be done now) ..... The project EIR states that existing Gold line tracks at the surface and the current Little Tokyo station will be maintained so Metro can definitely run trains from East LA to Pasadena if it wants. The only thing is that it won't stop at the new underground Little Tokyo Station so transfer to the other lines will be difficult. For that reason, I believe Metro will not run East LA to Pasadena train for revenue service. But expect plenty of trains to still go from Union Station to East LA for positioning runs. But Metro can for sure run special trains during events at Rose Bowl or for the Rose Parade from East LA to Pasadena. This will not be difficult at all. You are basically correct... there will be an imbalance of demand on the Blue line. So here is where things get really complicated. I think someone on these board already made a fairly detailed calculation. I seem to recall the peak throughput rate on Regional Connector is something like 3 minutes headway so you can run alternating Blue line and Expo line train every six minutes: 00:03 Blue 00:06 Expo 00:09 Blue 00:12 Expo And so on... So if Metro wants to provide more than 6 minutes headway on any part of the line, it will need to run short lines. Assuming the Foothill segment can continue support existing 6 minute headway with 2 car train, it means Metro will definitely need to add Long Beach to Downtown LA short lines because the current Blue line is already running 3 car trains every 6 minutes at peak time. And my educated guess is the short line will terminate at 7th Street Metro Center instead Union Station due to the pocket track that will be constructed between 4th St and 6 St. That's the most logical place to turn the train to go back to Long Beach. As for short line between Santa Monica and Downtown LA, I don't really see any need for it. The East LA portion is relatively short so you are not saving a lot of vehicle service hours by running a short line. You can probably run a 2 car train every 6 minutes from Santa Monica to East LA without overcrowding. A likely service pattern: F line: Azusa to Long Beach - Off peak: 2 car train every 6 minutes; Peak: 3 car train every 6 minutes L line: 7th Street Metro Center to Long Beach - Peak: 3 car train every 6 minutes E line: Santa Monica to East LA - Off peak: 2 car train every 6 minutes; peak 3 car train every 6 minutes Under this service pattern, the current Blue line (7th St to Long Beach) will see off peak service every 6 minutes and peak service every 3 minutes (vs. currently 10 minutes off-peak / 5 minutes peak) The current Gold line (both East side and Pasadena) will have the same level of service as now - 6 minutes pretty much all the time (except for very early morning and very late night hours) The current Expo line will have 6 minute service(vs. currently 10 minutes off-peak, 12 minutes peak) on the assumption that ridership will increase once Santa Monica segment opens. That's a good assessment, however I anticipate the Expo Line once it reaches Santa Monica, that line will have a demand much like the Blue Line and it will have heavier demand during off peak periods so that line will need 3 car trains. Also because the Regional Connector will see an immediate 25% increase in ridership on the Pasadena/SGV Gold Line leg, I think that will now enable 3 car trains to run during off peak period. You add to this events like USC games at the Coliseum and from my anecdotal observations, the majority of USC game patrons are near the Pasadena/SGV leg of the Gold Line where trains are busier. The outlier in this conversation will be the Eastside Leg because of its routing, I see demand increase because Eastside residents can connect into Downtown quickly ans connect to the Red/Purple Line faster, however there's so much excess capacity currently on 2 car trains running every 6 minutes it won't need 3 car trains every 6 minutes, more like 3 car trains every 12 to match the demand. So the Long Beach Blue Line will need 3 car trains, Expo and SGV Gold Line legs will need 3 car trains. Eastside can get by with 2 car trains based upon demand.
|
|