|
Post by trackman on May 25, 2010 5:26:40 GMT -8
The image-idea presented was in response to changes at Wilshire/Vermont not being constructable. I do not believe they are. Also, the Red Line currently has about 50,000 trips going through it there - how do you tell those riders they now need to transfer to another line, which will probably also already have 50,000 riders and standing loads.
Red Line changes look interesting, but I really don't think they are feasible.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 25, 2010 11:10:21 GMT -8
The image-idea presented was in response to changes at Wilshire/Vermont not being constructable. I do not believe they are. Also, the Red Line currently has about 50,000 trips going through it there - how do you tell those riders they now need to transfer to another line, which will probably also already have 50,000 riders and standing loads. Red Line changes look interesting, but I really don't think they are feasible. With the track configuration shows above you would be able to run trains directly to Downtown from North Hollywood, and run trains from South LA to Westwood, if desired. However, if there are cross-platform transfers the speed of the trip for any given passenger and the maximum capacity is the same, with less complexity in the system. The Purple Line (East-West on Wilshire) could run 6 car trains every 2 minutes at rush hour, if need be, to handle the load of transfers from the Red Line. Anything is constructible, the question is the cost and the length of disruption to existing subway service. I agree that this would be a problem. If the connection cannot be done at Wilshire/Western, I question the value of a heavy rail subway on Vermont. Surface light rail, with a transfer to the Expo Line, could serve the southern portion of the route, with bus rapid transit continuing on the Wilshire to Exposition portion for now, and light rail could be built to Glendale seperately; this would be cheaper than a subway thru Westlake and Silverlake, and should have sufficient capacity. I agree that there may be too much east-west demand on the Purple Line in the distant future (say 2040) if the city grows, electric cars are expensive and there is no technology revolution which reverses the peak in oil and natural gas production. In that case a new east-west rail line on Sunset (the "Silver Line" thru Silverlake), or Venice, might be needed to relieve overloaded buses. With the changed political situation at that time, we could take away 3 lanes from cars and build surface light rail on one of those streets, and use the lower costs to allow more rail to be built.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 25, 2010 11:19:21 GMT -8
Hmm, how about stations at: Wilshire/Vermont <edit: then every 1/2 mile to Vernon> <then every 1 mile or so> .... Stations every 1/2 mile would be great. They add a few minutes to long trips, but double the area within a 5 minute walk, and significantly increase the area within a 10 to 15 minute walk. However, subway stations are getting really expensive, $200 million or so is planned for each station on the Purple Line extension, while the tunnels and tracks are "only" $200 million per mile, exclusive of stations. Adding 4 stations between Wilshire and Vernon would mean you would lose 2miles and 2 stations on the south end of the line, if costs are held constant. I might agree to the trade if we are talking about losing stations at El Segundo and Redondo beach (Stopping at the Green Line), but not if we are talking about losing stations at the Green Line and Century Blvd, or Manchester and Florence. With 1 mile station spacing, like the existing Vermont portion of the Red Line, the 754 rapid bus could have stops every 1/2 mile, to fill in the gaps in subway service and take care of shorter trips, while the subway would be best for longer trips and trips that start near a station.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 25, 2010 14:59:33 GMT -8
Adding 4 stations between Wilshire and Vernon would mean you would lose 2miles and 2 stations on the south end of the line, if costs are held constant. That's just it; I don't expect the cost to stay the same. I assume these 4 (or 3) stations would be Pico, Adams, and Exposition (transfer station with Expo/Aqua)? Interesting. I never thought of that!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 25, 2010 15:26:58 GMT -8
There are no costs to hold constant since the cost of the line is estimated after the line is planned and AFAIK that hasn't yet happened.
From what I see Vermont is one of the busier streets in LA for both transit and pedestrian traffic. I think that in the densely populated area from Adams to Slauson that a station every 0.75 miles is justified. Of course the major streets are closer to 1 mile so you plan on that and then add intermediate stations in key places where desired.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 26, 2010 7:46:41 GMT -8
Hmm, how about stations at: Wilshire/Vermont <edit: then every 1/2 mile to Vernon> <then every 1 mile or so> .... Stations every 1/2 mile would be great. They add a few minutes to long trips, but double the area within a 5 minute walk, and significantly increase the area within a 10 to 15 minute walk. Once you have stop spacing that close together you do better having this line be a streetcar with signal priority. You can quicker access directly off of station platforms to the destinations in question. By then you might as well have the local line 204 have a dedicated bus lane in key segments along with the Regional subway with 1.0 mile station spacing to get the best of both worlds. South of the Green Line the line can have spacing slightly farther apart. However, if this line will be a separate rail corridor then it maybe better to continue this line to 3rd/Vermont then proceed with the following stations * 3rd/Vermont* Wilshire/Vermont * Olympic/Vermont * Venice/Vermont (Pico and Venice is about 1000' apart you could have a portal at both Pico and Venice with one station serving both.) * Adams * Exposition-Coliseum * Vernon * Slausontransitions from subway to elevated median around Gageexisting condition south of Gage* Florence * Manchester * Century * Green Line Rough sketch of a median stationtransitions from elevated median to railroad right-of-way* Rosecrans * Redondo Beach Blvd * Old Town Gardena * Artesia * 190th * Torrance * Harbor/UCLA HospitalI could see this line as a heavy rail if it ties into the North Hollywood line or if its a seperate line it can be a light rail with longer train platforms (from 3 car to 4 or 5 cars) to give you the Heavier rail capacity but utilizing the same kit-of-parts of our LRV's. Since north of Gage the line will be underground to meet the heavier demand where they could run more frequent trains from Wilshire to Slauson.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2010 9:13:41 GMT -8
I agree with your station placement, Jerard.
So essentially the choices come down to (1) a heavy-rail line that shares existing facilities with the Red Line; or (2) light-rail line that terminates at Vermont/Wilshire.
I kind of like the light-rail option. As Jerard says you can get good capacity along that line with extra-long platforms. In addition, it provides compatibility with the greater system, and it allows the possibility of street-running on its southern end (south of the Green Line).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 26, 2010 10:39:49 GMT -8
I agree with your station placement, Jerard. So essentially the choices come down to (1) a heavy-rail line that shares existing facilities with the Red Line; or (2) light-rail line that terminates at Vermont/Wilshire. I kind of like the light-rail option. As Jerard says you can get good capacity along that line with extra-long platforms. In addition, it provides compatibility with the greater system, and it allows the possibility of street-running on its southern end (south of the Green Line). Only problem with light rail is it doesn't provide compatibility where you need it, at Vermont/Wilshire. I still love this line as an extension of the Red Line. Yes, heavy rail would be more expensive than light rail south of Gage where it would likely go elevated a la BART, but the tie-in with the Red Line is too important, especially if this goes to the Green Line. Given that the Red Line and Green Line are very fast, you would have great connectivity between much of South LA and Hollywood and the Valley. Connect the Green Line to Metrolink and HSR in Norwalk and you really open up some longer distance travel patterns. Even with transfers, the speed of these lines will make them good alternatives. Long term this is what is needed as right now all the pressure will be on Expo, Crenshaw and the Blue Line and those lines all have speed and capacity limitations due to their street running and other issues (Blue/Expo tie-in), etc...
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 26, 2010 11:52:03 GMT -8
Only problem with light rail is it doesn't provide compatibility where you need it, at Vermont/Wilshire. I still love this line as an extension of the Red Line. Yes, heavy rail would be more expensive than light rail south of Gage where it would likely go elevated a la BART, but the tie-in with the Red Line is too important, especially if this goes to the Green Line. So if the speed will make the transfer a good alternative, what difference will it make if it is heavy rail or light rail? In this case the CORRIDOR is needed to expand upon the transit network cause even if these -Blue, Expo, Crenshaw- lines were heavy rail and they went over capacity, we would be right back from adding this additional line to relieve strains off other corridors as it is done with many other transit networks around the world.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 26, 2010 13:15:16 GMT -8
Thanks for re-posting those sketches, Jerard.
I think they demonstrate that this corridor has plenty of room for elevated or at-grade rail, south of Gage.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 26, 2010 13:25:17 GMT -8
Only problem with light rail is it doesn't provide compatibility where you need it, at Vermont/Wilshire. I still love this line as an extension of the Red Line. Yes, heavy rail would be more expensive than light rail south of Gage where it would likely go elevated a la BART, but the tie-in with the Red Line is too important, especially if this goes to the Green Line. So if the speed will make the transfer a good alternative, what difference will it make if it is heavy rail or light rail? I meant the transfer from the Green Line to the Vermont (Red Line) and from Metrolink to Green. Adding another transfer at Wilshire would be burdensome. It just doesn't make any sense to me to create two different lines on the same street, especially when it has to go in a tunnel anyway to continue south of Wilshire. It is almost like saying the Regional Connector should be heavy rail and lines like Expo, Blue and Gold can just transfer to that heavy rail line to continue, but to avoid that is why we are doing the Connector in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 26, 2010 14:49:10 GMT -8
Masonite just said it best. Keep the Vermont Line heavy rail.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 26, 2010 16:40:23 GMT -8
I'd go with heavy rail as well. I think that the entire line from Manchester to Wilshire needs to be grade separated. And then if the line is grade separated the long term operating costs are lower and the capacity is greater if we go with heavy rail.
But then again, if the plan ends up being to extend the line as far south as Harbor-UCLA, then light rail might make sense. How2 frequently could a 4 or 5 car lrv train be run? I know that they can't do that at 10 tph on any of the existing lines. The gold line had to be upgraded just to run 3-car trains. Would it just be a matter of adding more substations per mile?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 27, 2010 10:10:43 GMT -8
So if the speed will make the transfer a good alternative, what difference will it make if it is heavy rail or light rail? I meant the transfer from the Green Line to the Vermont (Red Line) and from Metrolink to Green. Adding another transfer at Wilshire would be burdensome. It just doesn't make any sense to me to create two different lines on the same street, especially when it has to go in a tunnel anyway to continue south of Wilshire. If the bulk of the transfers from the Vermont line south of Wilshire are for destinations west of Wilshire, passengers are going to transfer anyways (as the case is now with the current bus service) again what difference will that make here? Considering that one of the only ways to tie this in will still require transfering back and forth for passengers on the North Hollywood Red Line going to/from Downtown which is a good portion of the trips for the Red Line. So one way or another we're going to be forcing a transfer here. The Regional Connector creates it as a heavy rail by the very nature of the higher frequency of two busy light rail lines running on the same underground corridor, which is needed due to capacity limitations due to the terminal at 7th Street Metro Center. Heavy Rail is about capacity and if that line uses LRV's but run them in a longer train and on a frequent headway, that is still heavy rail. Also with the Regional Connector it is a simple extension of the existing line at 7th Street Metro Center and tie it into the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 27, 2010 10:18:57 GMT -8
I'd go with heavy rail as well. I think that the entire line from Manchester to Wilshire needs to be grade separated. And then if the line is grade separated the long term operating costs are lower and the capacity is greater if we go with heavy rail. But then again, if the plan ends up being to extend the line as far south as Harbor-UCLA, then light rail might make sense. How frequently could a 4 or 5 car lrv train be run? I know that they can't do that at 10 tph on any of the existing lines. The gold line had to be upgraded just to run 3-car trains. Would it just be a matter of adding more substations per mile? In cities such as Edmonton and Calgary they operate the 4 or 5 car LRV's on 5 minute headways. Substations can be added or within the tunnel sections have an overhead third rail that will enable slightly lower power usage. If that section from Wilshire to the Green Line will be grade separated why not expand upon that and expand the system to serve more of the South Bay. Thanks for re-posting those sketches, Jerard. I think they demonstrate that this corridor has plenty of room for elevated or at-grade rail, south of Gage. No problem.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 27, 2010 14:47:58 GMT -8
But then again, if the plan ends up being to extend the line as far south as Harbor-UCLA, then light rail might make sense. How2 frequently could a 4 or 5 car lrv train be run? I know that they can't do that at 10 tph on any of the existing lines. The gold line had to be upgraded just to run 3-car trains. Would it just be a matter of adding more substations per mile? I feel like you're operating under the assumption that the current scarcity of transit funds will be permanent. Revenues, and ultimately funding, will go back up, despite the poor economy.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 27, 2010 17:14:42 GMT -8
How frequently could a 4 or 5 car lrv train be run? I know that they can't do that at 10 tph on any of the existing lines. If the stations, traction power substations, signaling system and positive train control is built for it, light rail can run at least 30 trains per hour (every 2 minutes), with our existing light rail systems. Consider that the blue line and expo line are both expected to run trains every 5 minutes (12 tph) at rush hour on the shared section of track in LA. That's 24 tph, despite having grade crossings with traffic lights and two different lines on one track. Ottawa, Canada is planning to replace a BRT route with light rail, which will have exclusive right-of-way, partial grade separation with some grade crossings, and 6-car trains, capable of handling "25,000 people per direction per hour", which works out to 30 trains per hour per direction: www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/17/ottawa-closer-than-ever-to-replacing-bus-rapid-transit-with-light-rail/EDIT: I see others made similar points already. For comparison of LRT to HRT, the red and purple lines could only handle a few more people per hour, about 30,000 combined, due to only having 6-car trains. Some Metro / Heavy Rail systems, like BART or the Tokyo subway, have 10 or 12 car trains, and therefore have twice that capacity, up to 50,000 passengers per direction per hour. See this thread: www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=418972&page=2
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 28, 2010 5:34:59 GMT -8
Responding to the idea of a link into and through at Wilshire/Vermont of the Red Line and making it so that it could be north-south only, yes, I suppose anything is possible and is theoretically do-able.
Practically, not a snowballs chance in hades. There are simply too many people and trips being made on the Red Line today that inserting a new transfer would not be acceptable. Also, capacity issues would likely be created on the Purple Line.
A new separate line would be more practically suited. To that, glad to see thoughts on that above.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 28, 2010 10:38:23 GMT -8
EDIT: I see others made similar points already. For comparison of LRT to HRT, the red and purple lines could only handle a few more people per hour, about 30,000 combined, due to only having 6-car trains. Some Metro / Heavy Rail systems, like BART or the Tokyo subway, have 10 or 12 car trains, and therefore have twice that capacity, up to 50,000 passengers per direction per hour. See this thread: www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=418972&page=2Theoretically they can have twice that, however there are limitiations. With BART their 10 car trains they can only go at a 2.5 minute frequency through the Transbay Tube and with more seated capacity they're limited to that maximum capacity some experts claim its between 20,000 to 24,000 passengers/hour. Tokyo with its longer trains go at that same frequency BUT the interior of their trains have more space for standees compared to seated so they're more likely capable of moving 50,000 passengers/hour. The NYC Subway has lines on the two track under river tubes that carry that 50,000 passenger/hour load on shorter 550-600' long trains and at 90 second to two minute frequencies. Toronto's subway operates with 6 car trains (450')on a two minute frequency and the have a 50,000 passenger per hour load at key points on their system.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 28, 2010 13:49:38 GMT -8
Practically, not a snowballs chance in hades. There are simply too many people and trips being made on the Red Line today that inserting a new transfer would not be acceptable. Also, capacity issues would likely be created on the Purple Line. Uhhh, what? Are you telling me that we couldn't have two lines use the Red Line ROW North of Wilshire/Vermont, while this is already happening on the (busy) Union Station branch where the Purple Line and Red Line use the same ROW?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 28, 2010 17:32:36 GMT -8
Those 30k/hr and 50k/hr numbers must be at any single point on the system since they obviously have no basis in how mass transit works. They sound like something that comes from people trying to compare freeway capacity to mass transit capacity. They work in that context, but are misleading when discussing only mass transit. JMO.
And jdcrasher, no that's not what he's saying. He's saying that he thinks that tying a a new Vermont line in with the existing red line is so disruptive that while technically possible is very unlikely. I'm not so sure about that though. He's assuming that any tie in would have to use the existing station. If you assume that a new station is constructed it becomes at least a little more feasible.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 29, 2010 13:58:33 GMT -8
Theoretically speaking, yes, probably anything can be constructed. Or, de-constructed and put back together. I am speaking to the improvements above Wilshire-Vermont, the station itself, or the junction tie-ins that would need to be done on either or both sides of the station. Improvements are more than blowing out a side wall and adding track adjacent to the current platforms... those tracks need to tie-in to something for trains to serve the station.
Practically, no, I don't think the impact to existing services during construction are do-able. We're talking 2+ years of work. Basically, it's in the ground and covered up and will stay that way pending any major catastrophy.
btw, apoliges for any infraction on the site concerning use of words - I saw an edit where a word I selected was changed to 'hades.'
Point #2, a proposal to no longer send the Red Line to downtown... too many riders negatively affected. Probably more than half of all Red Line riders travel through Wilshire-Vermont in each direction and during all times of the day. Hollywood area has a lot of employment... there is a good outbound ridership headed to work in the mornings from downtown too. I believe the number is greater than 50,000 per day, which is a small city in of itself.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 30, 2010 12:15:18 GMT -8
Those 30k/hr and 50k/hr numbers must be at any single point on the system since they obviously have no basis in how mass transit works. They sound like something that comes from people trying to compare freeway capacity to mass transit capacity. They work in that context, but are misleading when discussing only mass transit. JMO. Yup, those are the max number of people per hour per direction thru a given point. They are relevant if you are trying to get a lot of people to one place at one time, like a ballpark or central business district, but of course the whole transit route can exceed these ridership numbers, assuming some people get off the train and others get on. This works much better with transit than with highways, which tend to turn into traffic jams which radiate outward from "choke points" and mess up the whole highway system. On the other hand, the max capacity numbers are for "crush loads" on subways with over half the passengers standing, so we don't want the whole system to run like that
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 30, 2010 20:29:49 GMT -8
Point #2, a proposal to no longer send the Red Line to downtown... too many riders negatively affected. Probably more than half of all Red Line riders travel through Wilshire-Vermont in each direction and during all times of the day. Hollywood area has a lot of employment... there is a good outbound ridership headed to work in the mornings from downtown too. I believe the number is greater than 50,000 per day, which is a small city in of itself. Not exactly what I meant. I meant that I thought no longer sending the Red Line to Downtown was YOUR proposal. But obviously it isn't. Of course it shouldn't stop going to Downtown. But is having the existing Red Line AND a Vermont Corridor (2 lines on one ROW starting at Wilshire/Vermont) really going to be THAT disruptive? Isn't Wilshire/Vermont a double-decker station, one for the Purple Line, and the other for the Red Line? And having 2 subway lines on one ROW isn't new; in fact, there are several instances where 2-and even 3-lines use the same ROW in New York's subway system.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 30, 2010 22:23:29 GMT -8
Isn't Wilshire/Vermont a double-decker station, one for the Purple Line, and the other for the Red Line? To clarify, the existing Wilshire/Vermont station is a two-level station, with the upper level served by inbound trains headed to Union Station. The lower level is served by outbound trains headed to North Hollywood and Wilshire/Western. Here is a quick sketch of the Wilshire/Vermont station. I have purposefully omitted many details and not drawn it to scale to preserve clarity:
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 31, 2010 7:47:02 GMT -8
Absolutely excellent sketch!
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 31, 2010 10:09:14 GMT -8
Excellent sketch, the only thing you're missing is the station access, which I believe is an escalator from both the platforms. Dealing with station access would be a big problem in reconstructing the station. Also, since the Moscow Metro is being used for comparison, I just wanted to share a few facts about it. First of all, the highest scheduled level of service is 39 tph, and higher levels have proved impossible to run reliably. And this level of service is only run on lines with no branches. With a 1:1 split, it's probably possible to come close to that level of service, and with a more complex pattern, 24 tph seems to be a reasonable limit. The lines that have this level of service all use an ATC system similar to the Red Line, which is basically a fixed block cab signal system with speed enforcement. The USSR had ATO technology, and indeed some of the first trials of it were on the Moscow Metro, but it was never adopted because, believe it or not, it is less efficient. If you ride, say, the JFK Airtrain, you can tell that the computer isn't very good at stopping the train precisely, and it kind of coasts for the last several feet before slamming on the brakes. This adds a delay and even a small delay, like 2 seconds, adds up over 39 trains per hour and you end up losing a bit of capacity to the automation. For the Red/Purple Lines, the current service level is 6 tph on each branch, with 6-car trains to North Hollywood and 4-car trains to Wilshire/Western. Once the Wilshire subway opens, I can see this going up a bit, maybe to 8 or 10 tph, with 6-car trains on both branches, but that's nowhere near exhausting the capacity of the tunnels. And at some point, you're going to run into other limitations, like the capacity of the stations to handle the volume of passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 31, 2010 10:45:15 GMT -8
Excellent sketch, the only thing you're missing is the station access, which I believe is an escalator from both the platforms. Thanks. For station access details, I refer you to this official 1990 artist's rendering of the as-built Wilshire/Vermont station (looking south): From the mezzanine level, there are indeed two pairs of escalators, each pair directly serving one of the platform levels. The escalators are partially obscured in the rendering but you can make them out. Stairs also accompany the short set of escalators. Picture: (There are also two escalator-stair pairs that link the two platform levels. Those are visible in the rendering.)
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 31, 2010 13:40:10 GMT -8
I remember when my family first visited Wilshire/Vermont, my father's immediate reaction was Akasaka Mitsuke! And he's right. The basic idea behind Akasaka Mitsuke and Wilshire/Vermont is essentially the same, with the inbound and outbound tracks on top of each other. However, the Wilshire/Vermont station has the fatal flaw that the platforms are side-loading, rather than island platforms, rendering the station much more difficult to expand. But then, I don't think the designers ever considered the possibility of expanding the station. In Tokyo, the "sideways" design meant that one could make a cross-platform connection between two subway lines. At Wilshire/Vermont, I suspect that the best that would be possible would be to construct a whole separate platform for trains continuing south on Vermont rather than using the Wilshire/Vermont wye. On a side note, assuming that my entire post isn't one giant tangent, it looks like the 1990 artist's rendering shows a pedestrian tunnel of some sort on the left side of the drawing, above the tracks, heading off mysteriously to the west. Clearly somebody had a second entrance in mind, even if the idea was scratched, in favor of the maddening "one and only one grand entrance" design that Metro is stuck with...
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 31, 2010 14:20:04 GMT -8
I remember when my family first visited Wilshire/Vermont, my father's immediate reaction was Akasaka Mitsuke! And he's right. While we're looking at international counterparts, we can also note the Lionel-Groulx Montreal Metro station, which has same basic set-up as the Akasaka-mitsuke Station. On a side note, assuming that my entire post isn't one giant tangent, it looks like the 1990 artist's rendering shows a pedestrian tunnel of some sort on the left side of the drawing, above the tracks, heading off mysteriously to the west. Clearly somebody had a second entrance in mind, even if the idea was scratched, in favor of the maddening "one and only one grand entrance" design that Metro is stuck with... Based on the design documents I have seen, Metro always planned to have one large station entrance and plaza to the southwest of the station box (the exact shape of the plaza did change quite a bit, though). The closed-off space on the mezzanine level is almost definitely ancillary space for power, ventilation, and traction power systems. It might be possible in the future to install a passenger walkway through there to have a new portal on Shatto. Future modifications of any sort to the station will be much more difficult with the TOD on the surface, though...
|
|