|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 14, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -8
Today I was riding the green line and I noticed that the station is only long enough for a two car train. Does anyone know the reason for this? It eliminates the possibility of running three car trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 14, 2010 18:25:42 GMT -8
Although the current platform is short, the structure appears long enough for 3 car trains, with room to add more platform length to the west: maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=aviation+station&sll=33.771011,-118.173624&sspn=0.007884,0.013711&ie=UTF8&hq=aviation+station&hnear=&ll=33.929616,-118.377592&spn=0.00093,0.001714&t=h&z=19 I am not sure if the track alignment was designed for and expansion to 4-car trains, but 3-car should be possible, if the platforms at other stations are lengthened as well. If some deck could be added to the east, even 4-car trains would fit at this station, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 14, 2010 19:44:51 GMT -8
Most of the Green Line's stations are long enough for 3-car trains just that there's a few stations (like Mariposa Station) that have capacity for only 2-car trains. At the moment it doesn't seem that'll change but when the South Bay Extension and the Crenshaw line opnes, that might change with higher ridership(hopefully).
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 14, 2010 21:20:02 GMT -8
I haven't ridden the Green Line in a while, but I always find both weekday and weekend ridership from Redondo Beach station to Aviation/LAX to be very dismal despite its superior grade separated design over the Gold, Blue, and even Orange Line (yeah, I know it's a bus); however, it's there for the park and ride lot and the maintenace facility on Aviation between Rosecrans and Marine. If the extension can reach Del Amo mall, that should make the corridor worthy; even better if there is a way the line can go to San Pedro and connect to the Waterfront Red Car (PE replica) line.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 14, 2010 23:04:55 GMT -8
Although the current platform is short, the structure appears long enough for 3 car trains, with room to add more platform length to the west: maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=aviation+station&sll=33.771011,-118.173624&sspn=0.007884,0.013711&ie=UTF8&hq=aviation+station&hnear=&ll=33.929616,-118.377592&spn=0.00093,0.001714&t=h&z=19 I am not sure if the track alignment was designed for and expansion to 4-car trains, but 3-car should be possible, if the platforms at other stations are lengthened as well. If some deck could be added to the east, even 4-car trains would fit at this station, at least. It may look long enough from over head but when I was riding it today the two car train took up the entire length of the platform. Other platforms along the alignment were long enough for a three car train. So the platform would have to be expanded if the ridership went up. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 15, 2010 1:38:14 GMT -8
Most of the Green Line's stations are long enough for 3-car trains just that there's a few stations (like Mariposa Station) that have capacity for only 2-car trains. At the moment it doesn't seem that'll change but when the South Bay Extension and the Crenshaw line opnes, that might change with higher ridership(hopefully). Correct. All of the Green Line stations have three-car platforms except for Aviation, Mariposa, Douglas, and Redondo Beach, each of which have two car platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 15, 2010 22:58:35 GMT -8
tonyw79sfv,
I don't know how low ridership is on the Green Line from the terminus at "Redondo Beach" to Aviation. However, it is possible that the ridership is only low there due to the nature of long transit routes.
Let's pretend that the Green Line in the future has 20 stations, and each station has 20,000 people boarding per day. 1000 at each station are headed to each of the other stations, so the station of origin and of destination are perfectly evenly distributed, and every station is just as busy and well-used. This would happen in a city where the number of businesses, offices and homes were evenly spread along the line (an unlikely situation, but not unimaginable).
In this case, there would be only a few people in each train right before the end of the line, and trains would be crowded in the middle of the line, with the number of riders in each train tracing a bell-shaped curve from one end of the line to the other.
On the other hand, a line like the Blue Line has many trips ending (or starting) at one end, in this case at 7th St / Metrocenter, due to transfers to the Subway and trips to downtown. In this case there are many people at one end of the line, and few at the beginning, even if every other station has the same number of arrivals and departures.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 16, 2010 7:03:18 GMT -8
Main reason the western tail of the Green Line (east of Aviation) has low ridership is because its in the middle of nowhere. No trip generators. At one time, the area was booming with aerospace jobs. But that was 20 years ago, and there are far fewer jobs in that area now.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 16, 2010 10:21:47 GMT -8
Are you saying we should get rid of the El Segundo Green Line stations, metrocenter?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 16, 2010 10:36:20 GMT -8
You bring up an interesting point, jdrcrasher: when is it appropriate to close a station? Certainly there has to be a minimum number of daily riders to justify the operational cost of keeping a station open. What is that number: 1000? 500? 200?
As for these particular stations, I wouldn't get rid of them at this point: I'd try to make better use of them. I'd like to see El Segundo work on a plan for the eastern part of their city to better make use of these stations. Better transit connections, or street realignments, or TODs, etc.
If Metro ever extends the Green Line south to the South Bay Galleria (or beyond), at least there would be somebody riding through that section, and it might not seem so desolate.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 16, 2010 11:11:50 GMT -8
Main reason the western tail of the Green Line (east of Aviation) has low ridership is because its in the middle of nowhere. No trip generators. At one time, the area was booming with aerospace jobs. But that was 20 years ago, and there are far fewer jobs in that area now. This is one of the reasons why if Crenshaw is built that the Green Line should be a straight East/West Line to its prime destination (LAX) and these stations would become part of Crenshaw only. The way the MTA currently contemplates it makes little sense to split the line to send trains to LAX and the South Bay. In the South Bay they would have to coordinate with Crenshaw trains, which will be coming in from a non-grade separated line. Not sure why we would want to overserve this part of the line where there is little ridership (it would have both Green and Crenshaw trains). If you make the Green Line as an LAX to Norwalk route only, then the only station served by both the Crenshaw and Green Lines would be the LAX station, which as the busiest station makes sense. It is inefficient and expensive to overserve stations that don't justify it with ridership. Another reason mentioned is that these stations are made for two car platforms and if the Green Line were just routed to LAX, it would be all 3 car platforms and ready to go from day 1. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 16, 2010 13:14:44 GMT -8
This is one of the reasons why if Crenshaw is built that the Green Line should be a straight East/West Line to its prime destination (LAX) and these stations would become part of Crenshaw only. The way the MTA currently contemplates it makes little sense to split the line to send trains to LAX and the South Bay. In the South Bay they would have to coordinate with Crenshaw trains, which will be coming in from a non-grade separated line. Not sure why we would want to overserve this part of the line where there is little ridership (it would have both Green and Crenshaw trains). If you make the Green Line as an LAX to Norwalk route only, then the only station served by both the Crenshaw and Green Lines would be the LAX station, which as the busiest station makes sense. It is inefficient and expensive to overserve stations that don't justify it with ridership. Agreed! Then, IMHO, the logical next move is to hook the Green line northwest from LAX to join up with the 405 line wherever it meets Expo Phase II. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 16, 2010 14:08:58 GMT -8
This is similar to how people speculated what would happen once the Downtown Connector got built. Would trains run from Long Beach to Pasadena, or Long Beach to the Eastside, or Santa Monica to the Eastside, etc. etc.? Metro recently has made it clear that once the Connector opens, the Blue Line will go to Pasadena, while the Expo Line will be linked with the Eastside Line, both via Little Tokyo.
Once Crenshaw opens and whenever the Green Line extension to LAX (and beyond) heats up, this is a decision that will have to be made. Fortunately, it would only make sense to, as many of you already suggested, run Crenshaw towards the South Bay and have the Green Line swing north towards Expo and the future I-405 Line. Crenshaw is being hailed as the next N-S Line, and having it swing North to serve Expo and the 405 Line just wouldn't make sense, not to mention the fact that it would probably be more complicated to run the trains that way.
If Crenshaw has to share tracks with any train, it should be the future I-405 Line, which should continue beyond LAX to serve the South Bay and Long Beach as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 16, 2010 14:33:16 GMT -8
The Crenshaw (Green Line?) Expo station could turn out to be a major transfer point. I assume that the Expo CA is considering this as they build the station. It seems pretty large to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 16, 2010 20:04:20 GMT -8
The Crenshaw/Expo station on the Expo Line is already designed (and is almost built). What can be changed at this point is the Crenshaw/Expo station on the Crenshaw Line. There are currently two options being studied: at-grade (on the east side of the block) and subway (between Rodeo and Expo).
But all this is a topic for either the Crenshaw Line forum or the Expo Line forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Apr 16, 2010 20:57:44 GMT -8
To begin, this is what is in the LRTP, or makes sense from the LRTP
Blue Line (Long Beach to Pasadena, then eventually Azusa)
Gold/Expo Line (Santa Monica to East LA and eventually Whittier or El Monte)
Green Line (Norwalk Aviation/Century/LAX)
Crenshaw Line (Exposition to Green Line to Torrance)
Purple Line (to Westwood)
Beyond this, I like the following - most/all have been discussed here on these boards:
Green Line
- On West end.... Curve north along Crenshaw, left on Century, through LAX, up Lincoln, and up to Santa Monica
- On East End... continue east to the proposed Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs HSR/Metrolink Station
Crenshaw Line
- North up Crenshaw Blvd, left on San Vicente and pick-up where the Pink Line would run all the way to Hollywood/Highland
- South beyond Torrance and down to Long Beach
Purple Line
- Continue from Westwood to Santa Monica. The proposed Pink Line seems a bit silly - too circuitious for an expensive transit system
Sunset Line
- Mostly and East-West Line along Sunset and Santa Monica. Couyld pick-up where Crenshaw Extension would end, or begin in West Hollywood. Could pass by close enough by Dodger Stadium to make going to an event there by train a reasonable option. Then, either curve up to Glendale, or end at Union Station.
Burbank - Glendale - Sunset - Vermont
- I've been drawn to trying to connect Glendale's business/shopping areas along Brand, and see something beginning at either the North Hollywood Red Line Station, or Burbank Airport, head easterly to north Gendale, then south down Brand, turn southwest over Glendale Blvd., to Alvarado, by MacArthur Red Line Station, continue to Vermont and head south, stopping at either the Coliseum or all the way to the Green Line Vermont Station.
Red Line
- Some place to the north, that is dense, but not far. Hardly see the SFV capable of supporting frequent heavy rapid rail service.
As for I-405 line over the Supulveda Pass... I don't see it. It does not seem constructable. Something like a 5-mile tunnel would be necessary. At a cost of approximately $500 million per mile, it would require $2.5billion just to get beyond the pass.
Letting ones imagination flow is enjoyable... but taking the time to write this down is a pain.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 16, 2010 21:50:55 GMT -8
As for I-405 line over the Supulveda Pass... I don't see it. It does not seem constructable. Something like a 5-mile tunnel would be necessary. At a cost of approximately $500 million per mile, it would require $2.5billion just to get beyond the pass.
Letting ones imagination flow is enjoyable... but taking the time to write this down is a pain. I agree it will likely be more than the $1B allocated in Measure R. However, it might not be as expensive as you think. The expensive part of subway building is often building the stations and constructing in an urban environment and dealing with mitigations. With only two new underground stations instead of 5 or so, there is a savings of approx. $500M right there. In either case, it seems like better money spent than tunneling on Crenshaw, which is a $2B line as well. I think in a few years, people are really going to see that spending a little extra money to build fast rail to key destinations is worthwhile. Even now, of the 4 rail lines, the Red/Purple is the shortest line and carries more than the other 3 combined. The Gold Line is 3 miles longer and carries one-fifth the passengers, but it is certainly cost more than 1/5th of the Red Line even inflation adjusted. It also costs a lot more to operate on a per passenger basis than the Red/Purple Line, which people really forget. People understand 5 minutes from the Valley direct to UCLA or Westwood Village. That would be a very powerful advertisement for this line, especially if the Purple Line across LA is a reality. I know that people in the Valley, which has been a bit of a transit desert to date would be very excited about this. I look forward to the study about this line including ridership even with a crummy ridership model. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 11, 2015 16:49:29 GMT -8
Today I was riding the green line and I noticed that the station is only long enough for a two car train. Does anyone know the reason for this? It eliminates the possibility of running three car trains. Although the current platform is short, the structure appears long enough for 3 car trains, with room to add more platform length to the west: maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=aviation+station&sll=33.771011,-118.173624&sspn=0.007884,0.013711&ie=UTF8&hq=aviation+station&hnear=&ll=33.929616,-118.377592&spn=0.00093,0.001714&t=h&z=19 I am not sure if the track alignment was designed for and expansion to 4-car trains, but 3-car should be possible, if the platforms at other stations are lengthened as well. If some deck could be added to the east, even 4-car trains would fit at this station, at least. Most of the Green Line's stations are long enough for 3-car trains just that there's a few stations (like Mariposa Station) that have capacity for only 2-car trains. At the moment it doesn't seem that'll change but when the South Bay Extension and the Crenshaw line opnes, that might change with higher ridership(hopefully). Metro seems to be closing down some Green Line stations between March 20-22. I presume this is in relation to lengthening the platforms for the affected stations: Mariposa, El Segundo, Douglass, and Redondo Beach which will become Crenshaw/LAX Line. [Metro]I reason that Aviation Station will remain a 2-car station because the Green Line will swing north toward LAX and its ridership will still be unlikely to be enough to need three car trains. And if there was a crush of riders wanting to go to LAX via the Green Line on a longer set they could just as well skip Aviation Station because its as good as a only being a park-and-ride lot for the transit-only faring crowd. |
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Mar 11, 2015 19:51:59 GMT -8
Today I was riding the green line and I noticed that the station is only long enough for a two car train. Does anyone know the reason for this? It eliminates the possibility of running three car trains. Although the current platform is short, the structure appears long enough for 3 car trains, with room to add more platform length to the west: maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=aviation+station&sll=33.771011,-118.173624&sspn=0.007884,0.013711&ie=UTF8&hq=aviation+station&hnear=&ll=33.929616,-118.377592&spn=0.00093,0.001714&t=h&z=19 I am not sure if the track alignment was designed for and expansion to 4-car trains, but 3-car should be possible, if the platforms at other stations are lengthened as well. If some deck could be added to the east, even 4-car trains would fit at this station, at least. Most of the Green Line's stations are long enough for 3-car trains just that there's a few stations (like Mariposa Station) that have capacity for only 2-car trains. At the moment it doesn't seem that'll change but when the South Bay Extension and the Crenshaw line opnes, that might change with higher ridership(hopefully). Metro seems to be closing down some Green Line stations between March 20-22. I presume this is in relation to lengthening the platforms for the affected stations: Mariposa, El Segundo, Douglass, and Redondo Beach which will become Crenshaw/LAX Line. [Metro]I reason that Aviation Station will remain a 2-car station because the Green Line will swing north toward LAX and its ridership will still be unlikely to be enough to need three car trains. And if there was a crush of riders wanting to go to LAX via the Green Line on a longer set they could just as well skip Aviation Station because its as good as a only being a park-and-ride lot for the transit-only faring crowd. Unfortunately, this work is not for platform extension. This is related to the ongoing project to replace the train control system. The system was originally designed for the automated service with no operators that was proposed but not implemented. It has come time to replace it. It is also required due to the future interface of the Crenshaw line with the green line. Here is a presentation regarding what they are doing: GREEN LINE REHABILITATION / STATE OF GOOD REPAIR |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Mar 12, 2015 9:35:55 GMT -8
Crenshaw ridership isn't projected to be that high, so it will probably also be fine running 2-car trains for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 12, 2015 9:58:00 GMT -8
Crenshaw ridership isn't projected to be that high, so it will probably also be fine running 2-car trains for the foreseeable future. Yeah, I don't see the need for 3 car trains for quite a while. Maybe when the airport APM gets going - maybe. They should be able to easily extend the platforms for 3 car trains when the need arises just like was done for the Blue Line back in the day. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 13, 2015 11:29:47 GMT -8
Crenshaw line will only need 3 cars when if it connects to the Purple line and extends to Hollywood and meet up with Red line.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 13, 2015 11:35:13 GMT -8
Crenshaw ridership isn't projected to be that high, so it will probably also be fine running 2-car trains for the foreseeable future. Crenshaw ridership isn't projected to be that high, so it will probably also be fine running 2-car trains for the foreseeable future. Yeah, I don't see the need for 3 car trains for quite a while. Maybe when the airport APM gets going - maybe. They should be able to easily extend the platforms for 3 car trains when the need arises just like was done for the Blue Line back in the day. Crenshaw line will only need 3 cars when if it connects to the Purple line and extends to Hollywood and meet up with Red line. I will save this for claim chowder when the line inevidably exceeds the FTA ridership expectation formula as transit lines built here often do. |
|
