|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 26, 2010 9:40:02 GMT -8
I think there should be a station at Baldwin Ave to provide better access to the Arboretum and Santa Anita.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 26, 2010 15:04:54 GMT -8
As well, it would serve, Sierra Madre! ...I like the thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 26, 2010 15:25:58 GMT -8
I just found the following Foothill Ext. map. ...Indeed, the Foothill Ext. does NOTHING to offer further access to Sierra Madre, and it's such a beautiful little town for lunch or a walk/hike.  Either the Arcadia stop or the Sierra Madre Villa stop are as close as one can get, and each alternative station requires time and a farely substantial hike to get to Sierra Madre. It's ironic that Metro should fail to provide access to such a "walkable" community. Baldwin is the ideal location for a station to meet requirements for Sierra Madre, Santa Anita and the Arobretum. Hard to imagine why this was overlooked by the planners. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 26, 2010 17:43:37 GMT -8
Wow, that gap is over 3.5 miles, between Sierra Madre Villa and Arcadia. Unfortunately, even though the area around Baldwin might be a nice place to walk, it isn't "walkable," due to the lack of nearby destinations. The walk score is 49, which is "car dependent": www.walkscore.com/score/700-n-baldwin-arcadia-caConsidering that the area is all low-density single family homes, plus the Santa Anita Park, for a mile in each direction, with only a few businesses along Foothill, a station here would be lightly used. The other Foothill Light Rail stations have room for development and are more central in each town. And politically, Arcadia and Sierra Madre already "had" 1 station a piece on the map I see why many people thought higher-speed, regional rail service would be more appropriate for this corridor. If there were a way to get thru South Pasadena and Highland Park at higher speeds, electric "commuter" trains with top speeds of 90 or 110 mph would cut down greatly on the trip time between such widely spaced stations. Too bad Metrolink has not shown an example of that type of service, with high enough all-day frequency to be useful, for people to look forward to. At least the light rail will run every 15 or 20 minutes, and 55 mph between stations isn't bad. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 26, 2010 17:47:04 GMT -8
It's ironic that before the 210 freeway was built, there was a station near Baldwin on the Santa Fe. It was named Santa Anita, and with the coming of the freeway was dismantled and rebuilt at the south end of the Arboretum. During its later years on the Santa Fe, it was usually unattended, being opened only when race horses were being shipped by rail. Special modified express cars were used; at least two have been preserved.
Regarding adding a Baldwin Ave. stop to the Gold Line: I think we have a situation like Sierra Madre Blvd./Altadena Dr. and Hill Ave. in Pasadena. The locations were probably considered, but various civil-engineering concerns (not enough room, or other stations too nearby) led to these locations being bypassed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 26, 2010 17:56:51 GMT -8
I also wonder why the current gold line lacks a station at Sierra Madre Blvd. Too easy to confuse with Sierra Madre Villa, to be sure, but these stations would be a mile apart, and Sierra Madre Blvd is a major street appropriate for connecting bus service. The 2 mile station spacing is more like Metrolink.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 26, 2010 18:14:53 GMT -8
Agreed, the station spacing could be closer. One of the anomalies in our local rail system is that on Metrolink, Claremont and Montclair are less than a mile and a half apart: Closer than Hollywood & Highland and Universal on the Red Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 27, 2010 0:28:53 GMT -8
I'd like to see accommodation for locations such as Baldwin, where the anticipated ridership is low, but adjacent stations are quite distant. In fact, Baldwin may be the prime example in LA's Metro rail system. 3.5 miles between 2 stations seems quite distant.
Especially since a Baldwin station is sandwiched between freeway lanes, an "optional stop" station seems possible--exit from a train requires a request via pushing a button and the train woud stop only when passengers are on the platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 27, 2010 12:47:00 GMT -8
I see why many people thought higher-speed, regional rail service would be more appropriate for this corridor. If there were a way to get thru South Pasadena and Highland Park at higher speeds, electric "commuter" trains with top speeds of 90 or 110 mph would cut down greatly on the trip time between such widely spaced stations. Too bad Metrolink has not shown an example of that type of service, with high enough all-day frequency to be useful, for people to look forward to. At least the light rail will run every 15 or 20 minutes, and 55 mph between stations isn't bad. The original Gold Line was I believe 13 miles, and the Foothill extension would add another 11. Thats just to downtown. For a total of maybe 24 miles. That might be a bit short for 100mph service. The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head is the Denver airport line. 23 miles, 7 stations so about 4 miles average between them, and 79mph with EMU's. But the last hop to the airport is really the longest. Supposed to take 29 minutes from downtown to the airport. With projected ridership of 38,000 per day, thats doing better than our current Gold Line. But our GL had to live with the existing conditions, whereas the Denver airport line basically had a bunch of open space the last 1/2 of the trip to the airport which was built in the boonies for just that reason. That high speed EMU line makes sense, and I look forward to checking it out when it is done. I don't believe there was any way to build the GL with fewer stations further apart and run EMU's. Just for the reason you mentioned, congestion in the South Pasadena and Highland Park area. Nowhere near the ridership that the Denver airport link will see. The Baldwin stop specifically would have been great to have if it had been located in the wide open area that is the parking lot of the race track and the shopping mall. The problem there is then you aren't just laying tracks in the freeway median like you are now, and it would have been more expensive. I wonder if that option was even studied in the AA phase. Anybody know? Maybe the best place for an LA high(er) speed line with fewer stops might be from the airport to downtown or Union Station. Isn't there a ROW that goes that route, I can't remember it off the top of my head. It could even be a spur line direct from US to LAX of the high speed line should that get built. Anyone who has ever arrived at Schipol airport in the Netherlands knows how great it is to take a simple escalator down from the airport lobby and jump on a train direct to either downtown Amsterdam, or any points along the system. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 27, 2010 13:47:34 GMT -8
A "local run" version of Schipol airport <--> Amsterdam is found as a heavy rail line between Cleveland Hopkins Intl. Airport and downtown Cleveland's Union Terminal. An escalator takes one from ticket concourse directly to the trains and you're wisked to Union Terminal, that also contains a center city mall and Ritz Carleton. An issue with LA is how dispersed the city is. No one express line could address the transit need from LAX.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 27, 2010 16:59:48 GMT -8
The point is well taken about the Denver airport line having a considerable part of the route "in the boonies". One of the problems of building rail lines in places like LA County is that planners have to take what's available. In the case of the Gold Line, it was the Santa Fe railway route. To cross I-210 west of the former crossing and bring the line down to the race track-shopping mall area would be a major challenge from the financial, civil engineering and community relations points of view. Regarding airport service (since one of the ultimate goals is extending the Gold Line to Ontario Airport), in addition to Cleveland, both major Chicago airports (O'hare and Midway) have direct CTA "heavy" rapid transit service. Philadelphia has an electric-suburban line to the airport. St. Louis, Portland OR, and Seattle all have light-rail lines serving airports. Vancouver BC and Washington National (Reagan) have "heavy" rail service. Note that Cleveland's nominally "heavy" transit line uses overhead power collection, and no aircraft navigational or performance problems have ever been attributed to the trolley wire. Any claims that running the Green Line or the Gold Line onto airport property would bother air traffic are strictly bogus. Star Trek fans would quote the Capellans on anyone voicing such objections: "His words are empty, and we do not hear them."
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 27, 2010 19:32:38 GMT -8
For the Foothill Extension to go beyond the County Line at Claremont/Montclair should require San Bernardino County to pony up the capital cost AND and the annual operating subsidy. I don't know SB politics, but something tells me that might not happen for quite a while.
Additionally, assuming the Regional Connector, let's see, that would make a Long Beach to Ontario Airport run at about 69 miles. If trains will be averaging somewhere around 30mph - not saying that it would - but that will make a one-way trip time of well over 2 hours. Wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bart Reed on Jun 28, 2010 7:21:36 GMT -8
I also wonder why the current gold line lacks a station at Sierra Madre Blvd. Too easy to confuse with Sierra Madre Villa, to be sure, but these stations would be a mile apart, and Sierra Madre Blvd is a major street appropriate for connecting bus service. The 2 mile station spacing is more like Metrolink. Joe: Normal Metrolink spacing is 6 to 7 miles, with exceptions like downtown Burbank - Burbank Airport, Claremont - Montclair. This phase of the Gold Line has stations about 2 miles apart in some cases. |
|
|
|
Post by Bart Reed on Jun 28, 2010 7:31:02 GMT -8
For the Foothill Extension to go beyond the County Line at Claremont/Montclair should require San Bernardino County to pony up the capital cost AND and the annual operating subsidy. I don't know SB politics, but something tells me that might not happen for quite a while. Additionally, assuming the Regional Connector, let's see, that would make a Long Beach to Ontario Airport run at about 69 miles. If trains will be averaging somewhere around 30mph - not saying that it would - but that will make a one-way trip time of well over 2 hours. Wow! When the Foothill Extension gets to the County Line to San Bernardino, that County will pay to build the line and will kick in a pro rata operating cost based upon service hours rendered. The Line still has what can be a number of years before it gets funded from Citrus to County Line. When Bruce Shelburne was at The Transit Coalition monthly meeting, he did discuss some options to run the line, should it hit the length mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 28, 2010 13:57:33 GMT -8
For the Foothill Extension to go beyond the County Line at Claremont/Montclair should require San Bernardino County to pony up the capital cost AND and the annual operating subsidy. I don't know SB politics, but something tells me that might not happen for quite a while. Additionally, assuming the Regional Connector, let's see, that would make a Long Beach to Ontario Airport run at about 69 miles. If trains will be averaging somewhere around 30mph - not saying that it would - but that will make a one-way trip time of well over 2 hours. Wow! well, of course I don't know if very many people would make the trip from Long Beach to Ontario. Long Beach has an airport, and LAX isn't that far (by car or by Blue-Green transfer). But you might have people going from Pasadena to Ontario, just as you would have people going from Pasadena to Long Beach or Los Angeles to Ontario. What we might end up with is something similar to the Chuo-Sobu lines and the Narita Express. Chuo trains cover the western suburbs of Tokyo, Sobu trains cover the eastern suburbs. Some Chuo-Sobu trains go from west to east and the Narita Express branches off from the end of the Sobu Line. (Theoretically, Narita trains could head west on the Chuo Line, but they don't. They go to other suburbs instead.) [ EDIT: the train station distances have that "too long for light rail, too short for Metrolink" feel to them, too ] Of course, in Tokyo there are plenty of passing tracks so express trains can bypass locals, another issue we would have to address. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 28, 2010 14:12:29 GMT -8
For the Foothill Extension to go beyond the County Line at Claremont/Montclair should require San Bernardino County to pony up the capital cost AND and the annual operating subsidy. I don't know SB politics, but something tells me that might not happen for quite a while. Don't be so sure. San Bernardino is really starting to expand their transit network with the introduction of the SbX system. We might very well see an Ontario Airport connection by 2020. I believe all of Measure R's projects are required to be grade-seperated. That should speed things up dramatically. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 28, 2010 14:35:06 GMT -8
I believe all of Measure R's projects are required to be grade-seperated. That should speed things up dramatically. No, that is not true. There is nothing in Measure R that mandates grade separation. Counterexamples include Crenshaw and Expo Phase 2, both of which will be grade-separated only in certain segments. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 28, 2010 18:45:26 GMT -8
For the Foothill Extension to go beyond the County Line at Claremont/Montclair should require San Bernardino County to pony up the capital cost AND and the annual operating subsidy. I don't know SB politics, but something tells me that might not happen for quite a while. Don't be so sure. San Bernardino is really starting to expand their transit network with the introduction of the SbX system. We might very well see an Ontario Airport connection by 2020. There is a huge difference between light rail and BRT, as the San Fernando Valley is finding out. Still, it would be awesome if SB County moved forward on rail transit, especially if it happens before much larger OC (population wise, that is) gets its act together. Of course, I'm guessing that SB would probably prefer an Ontario to Redlands connection over an Ontario to Claremont/Pasadena one. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 10, 2011 19:40:57 GMT -8
Going back into the discussion of station spacing: In the ERHA book of Pacific Electric stations, the PE Monrovia-Glendora Line has five stops between (for example) Arcadia and Monrovia where the Gold Line Foothill Extension will have none, making the Gold Line service something closer to Metra in Chicagoland, or Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose. Of course, when the PE line was built, automobiles were still a curiosity and practical motor buses hadn't been built yet.
Regarding extending the line to Ontario Airport--how long does a train trip have to be before the Public Utilities Commission requires restrooms on the cars?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 12, 2011 20:03:08 GMT -8
Regarding extending the line to Ontario Airport--how long does a train trip have to be before the Public Utilities Commission requires restrooms on the cars? Ha! Yeah, unless the Blue Line is sped up in Long Beach and LA, the current Blue/Gold line will be 1.5 hours, and an extension add at least 31 miles and over 1 hour. When I'm on a bus for 2.5 hours, I would like to get to the Bakersfield at the other end! Really, the connection to Ontario airport needs to be Metrolink or express bus, for reasons other than bathrooms. (in comparison, it currently takes 2 hours to get from Pasadena to Ontario airport by bus transit, or Gold Line to Metrolink to Bus, so the direct light rail would be 1/2 the time) |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 12, 2011 22:40:22 GMT -8
My comment about restrooms was not quite serious: Assuming that when the Downtown Connector is completed, trains will be routed from Long Beach to Azusa, and from there to Ontario, it's likely that only diehard traction fans will go from end to end. As an historic note: Back about 90 years ago, Pacific Electric operated special trains from Pasadena to Long Beach.
One of the problems with using Metrolink for airport service (it presently serves Bob Hope/Burbank Airport) is the large gaps in midday schedules. Reasonably frequent headways are desirable for airport passengers, and trains should be running until late at night for airport employees and "redeye" passengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 13, 2011 19:19:23 GMT -8
My comment about restrooms was not quite serious ;-) I know. Well, if I want to take transit to Ontario Airport right now, Google claims the fastest trip is over 3 hours, any time of the day, via the Blue Line to Metrolink to bus, or the 577 (express bus) to the Silver Streak to another bus. Light rail direct from Long Beach to Ontario would only be about 2:45 minutes, or even as little as 2:30 if the street-running portions are improved. Still way too long. We need a limited-stop, Metrolink style service from Long Beach to LA; 60 minutes on the Blue Line to Union Station (post Regional Connector) is too long. Metrolink doesn't have funding for more trains, but there is no rule that says they can't run more often. They could run trains ever 15 to 30 minutes all day long (well, after adding another track in some single-track areas) with enough funding and better speeds. If Metrolink ran a train from Long Beach to LA Union Station along the existing freight tracks (upgraded), you could get from Willow Station to Union Station in 30 minutes, half the current trip time. If the trains came every 30 minutes (there is a convenient double-track section in the middle of the route, for passing), I would ALWAYS take that option, and I would gladly pay $10. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 29, 2011 8:25:05 GMT -8
If Metrolink ran a train from Long Beach to LA Union Station along the existing freight tracks (upgraded), you could get from Willow Station to Union Station in 30 minutes, half the current trip time. Would an upgrade to those freight tracks to enable the use of light rail trains be more cost effective and feasible, runnning the same trains used on the Blue Line as express runs from Long Beach to LA Union Station? |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 29, 2011 20:19:29 GMT -8
Would an upgrade to those freight tracks to enable the use of light rail trains be more cost effective and feasible, runnning the same trains used on the Blue Line as express runs from Long Beach to LA Union Station? I agree. Plus it would make a Foothill trip much more attractive. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 29, 2011 20:27:35 GMT -8
If Metrolink ran a train from Long Beach to LA Union Station along the existing freight tracks (upgraded), you could get from Willow Station to Union Station in 30 minutes, half the current trip time. Would an upgrade to those freight tracks to enable the use of light rail trains be more cost effective and feasible, runnning the same trains used on the Blue Line as express runs from Long Beach to LA Union Station? I think the issue has to do with what types of trains the FTA will let intermix with freight on the same tracks. IIRC, Metrolink trains are considered okay -- because they're big and heavy -- but light rail trains are not allowed to share track with freight trains. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 5, 2011 15:29:54 GMT -8
Would an upgrade to those freight tracks to enable the use of light rail trains be more cost effective and feasible, runnning the same trains used on the Blue Line as express runs from Long Beach to LA Union Station? I think the issue has to do with what types of trains the FTA will let intermix with freight on the same tracks. IIRC, Metrolink trains are considered okay -- because they're big and heavy -- but light rail trains are not allowed to share track with freight trains. You guys are correct. It would be ideal to run electric light rail trains, on the existing (or upgraded) freight tracks. However, this currently is not allowed, and would require an FRA waiver (which, interestingly, Caltrain has received) and electrification. I believe, from looking at the tracks, major repairs would be needed to allow high-speed passenger service. This seems to cost about 5 to 10 million a mile in the good old USA. Electrification would add to that cost, perhaps $5 million a mile (for new substations in addition to the wires). The best, cheap solution would be to refurbish the tracks and buy new DMU (diesel multiple unit) trains, after getting an FRA waiver to use light-weight, "non-compliant" trains as used in Europe and Japan. (These are just as safe in practice, but the FRA regulations are old). The DMUs don't accelerate as quickly as electric light rail, but with limited stops this would not matter as much. With one track you could run one train per hour. Refurbishing a mile of the 4th track in the middle would allow you to run a train ever 30 minutes. Either Metro or Metrolink could run the service. Later, if the service is very successful, the 4th track could be refurbished at more places to allow service every 10 or 15 minutes, and both "express" tracks could be electrified, saving lots of diesel fuel, and an additional couple of minutes per trip. (You can't just run express trains on the existing Blue Line tracks. There are already 10 to 12 trains per hour per direction, which leave no room for express trains, and the trains are pretty full, at rush hour.) There are 2 freight tracks from Union Station to Watts though only one is maintained south of Slauson, and 1 track but room for 2 from Watts to Del Amo and the LA River. Extending service over the river and into Long Beach would require a new track over the river and along the 2 blue line tracks into Long Beach; there is room in the right of way, but no freight tracks today Map of my ideas: maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=209582850025375035802.0004926f23bfe08d758d7&msa=0 |
|
