|
Post by trackman on Mar 7, 2011 17:25:40 GMT -8
I am not talking about washing windows and mopping floors. I am talking about a walk-through to pick up news papers and other items. That should take no longer than 45 seconds per person per car.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Mar 7, 2011 18:52:09 GMT -8
I am not talking about washing windows and mopping floors. I am talking about a walk-through to pick up news papers and other items. That should take no longer than 45 seconds per person per car. Have you see the Cars? My wife and I went to Long Beach for NYE We parked at Aviation and took the Green to the Blue lines. On the way back I started to pick up newspapers in our section of the car. I collected the equivalent of 6 LA TImes that had been strewn and kicked about and it did not even make a dent in the trash there. On the Green line, there were only 2 sections of a Filipino Newspaper neatly folded on a seat.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 7, 2011 18:52:15 GMT -8
How long it takes would likely vary depending on how much trash there is and what they would have to do to clean it. And I don't like the sound of "per person". How many people should be standing around waiting to clean trains for 45 seconds at a time?
Anyway to get back to the blue line, the blue line doesn't fumigate trains at the ends like the red/purple lines do. People are allowed to board and/or remain on the train at the terminals. Even still it's usually a pretty light load at the Transit Mall. They could have someone clean the trains there right now if they wanted. I guess that they don't see the need. Maybe they will when the connector opens.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 7, 2011 18:56:05 GMT -8
I am not talking about washing windows and mopping floors. I am talking about a walk-through to pick up news papers and other items. That should take no longer than 45 seconds per person per car. Have you see the Cars? My wife and I went to Long Beach for NYE We parked at Aviation and took the Green to the Blue lines. On the way back I started to pick up newspapers in our section of the car. I collected the equivalent of 6 LA TImes that had been strewn and kicked about and it did not even make a dent in the trash there. On the Green line, there were only 2 sections of a Filipino Newspaper neatly folded on a seat. And I think that leaving the newspapers starts with the best of intentions. People think that other people can read it when they're done. And people do, but after awhile parts get strewn on the floor and it becomes a mess. Maybe Metro could put up signs encouraging people to not leave their paper behind. Anyway for me, what's worse than the newspapers are the food, food wrappers, and containers that are left. Or food thrown on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 9, 2011 21:14:53 GMT -8
you mean sort of like these signs? it's a shame America isn't a manga-reading society. or if we read more magazines or comic books. anything held together with staples or phone-book glue. or even tabloid newspapers. any of those formats would leave less of a potential mess than a broadsheet. I like the Times, but full-sized newspapers weren't really designed for mass transit. come to think of it, a lot of the subway newsstands that I've seen in Japan or Europe sell a lot of magazines and comic books.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2011 10:34:07 GMT -8
From the May Transit Coalition Meeting the service level on the blue line will be reduced during rush hour from 11 tph (every 5-6 minutes) to 10 tph (every 6 minutes). This was pretty much expected so that service could be coordinated with Expo, which will run every 12 minutes. I don't see this as a significant issue for the blue line. The issue for the blue line at rush hour will continue to be that not all trains go to Long Beach making the Long Beach trains noticeably more crowded than the Willow trains. In other news a pedestrian was struck and killed at Artesia station. IIRC this is the third fatal accident at this station in the last few years. Maybe some safety enhancements are in order? Not sure because we never hear exactly what happened.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 30, 2011 17:52:45 GMT -8
From the May Transit Coalition Meeting the service level on the blue line will be reduced during rush hour from 11 tph (every 5-6 minutes) to 10 tph (every 6 minutes). This was pretty much expected so that service could be coordinated with Expo, which will run every 12 minutes. I don't see this as a significant issue for the blue line. The issue for the blue line at rush hour will continue to be that not all trains go to Long Beach making the Long Beach trains noticeably more crowded than the Willow trains. In other news a pedestrian was struck and killed at Artesia station. IIRC this is the third fatal accident at this station in the last few years. Maybe some safety enhancements are in order? Not sure because we never hear exactly what happened. Expo is only going to run every 12 minutes at rush hour? That's like local bus frequency. Geez.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 30, 2011 19:26:15 GMT -8
From the May Transit Coalition Meeting the service level on the blue line will be reduced during rush hour from 11 tph (every 5-6 minutes) to 10 tph (every 6 minutes). This was pretty much expected so that service could be coordinated with Expo, which will run every 12 minutes. I don't see this as a significant issue for the blue line. The issue for the blue line at rush hour will continue to be that not all trains go to Long Beach making the Long Beach trains noticeably more crowded than the Willow trains. In other news a pedestrian was struck and killed at Artesia station. IIRC this is the third fatal accident at this station in the last few years. Maybe some safety enhancements are in order? Not sure because we never hear exactly what happened. Expo is only going to run every 12 minutes at rush hour? That's like local bus frequency. Geez. One light rail train ( 228 seats) = Four articulated buses (@57 seats) = Six regular low-floor buses (@38 seats) In other words, the 3 car train has the capacity of an articulated bus running every 3 minutes, but you never know if that bus is over capacity and will be passing you up or getting behind schedule, so that there are 3 buses in a caravan. The same goes for a regular bus running every two minutes. An opening frequency of every 12 minutes is just fine, until ridership grows to force service running every 10 minutes and then every 6 minutes. In some ways, we are lucky that the Blue and Aqua Lines didn't get 4 car platforms or Metro would be able to justify 15 or 20 minute rush hour service, as that would meet the capacity.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 9, 2011 14:11:25 GMT -8
Expo is only going to run every 12 minutes at rush hour? That's like local bus frequency. Geez. ... In some ways, we are lucky that the Blue and Aqua Lines didn't get 4 car platforms or Metro would be able to justify 15 or 20 minute rush hour service, as that would meet the capacity. Yep, and this is how you can tell that most people at Metro don't use the system. Frequency is just as important as speed and reliability. In fact, for "short" trips (under 4 miles), you are on average better off taking a frequent bus that comes every 3 minutes and goes 15 mph, than taking a faster train that comes every 20 minutes and goes 30 mph. For a 4 mile trip, the (Metro Rapid" bus will take 16 minutes and you would wait an average of 2 minutes or less, for a total trip time of 18 minutes. The (light rail) train would only take 8 minutes to go the same distance, but you would wait 10 minutes on average, for a total trip time of... 18 minutes. The faster but less frequent service only comes out ahead if you are going farther than 4 miles. Now, if the train comes every 6 minutes at rush hour, it will be faster for almost any trip longer than a mile, even if you have to walk a little farther to the train station. The crazy thing is that we spend $1 or 2 billion to construct these lines, and then operate them only every 15 or 20 minutes? (I'm looking at you, Green Line). Doubling off-peak trains service on the Blue Line would cost about $10 million a year (at $400 per train-hour, 12 hours a day), less than 1% the cost of building the system. Compared to the capital costs, that's nuthin'. Metrolink has the biggest problems. Of course, it doesn't own all of its tracks, but increasing the frequency of trains would be orders of magnitude cheaper than double-tracking or electrifying, and much cheaper than building high-speed rail thru the region. Metrolink every 30 minutes, all day, would be actually useful as a reliable form of transportation. Make it 15 minutes all day and people will be begging for expansions to all corners of the region, instead of planning light rail to Ontario and other nonesense.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 9, 2011 14:33:10 GMT -8
Metro is trying to balance the load on the common ROW along Flower Street. With 5 TPH on the Expo Line and 10 TPH on the Blue Line, that common ROW is going to have 15 TPH in each direction. This translates to an average 4 minutes between trains. In practice, it will be 3 minutes between trains, with a departure skipped every twelve minutes: B-X-B-0-B-X-B-0-B-X-B-0... (B=Blue, X=Expo, 0=Skip) In general, Metro tends to open its rail lines at lower service levels, and then gradually increases service to meet demand. Unfortunately, it's a catch-22: lower service levels tend to slow the increase in demand. It also makes for bad publicity. If demand is strong early on, Metro might fill the skipped slot with another Expo train.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 9, 2011 14:36:38 GMT -8
Yep, and this is how you can tell that most people at Metro don't use the system. Frequency is just as important as speed and reliability. In fact, for "short" trips (under 4 miles), you are on average better off taking a frequent bus that comes every 3 minutes and goes 15 mph, than taking a faster train that comes every 20 minutes and goes 30 mph. But that will be the case for short distance trips regardless. If I know I have to wait a good amount of time for the bus (30 minutes) and travel about a mile or mile and a half or so, I'm going to walk because 1) I get some physical exercise and 2) By the time the bus arrives at your stop you could be at your destination. It's called incramentally building up a successful market. San Diego Trolley did it, Washington Metro did it and still does it. It makes no sense to run all that extra service and have it viewed as no one is riding on it. By running the system efficiently for San Diego's case with a 15-20 minute off-peak headway it increased the ridership on the line by 20% because during midday periods frequency isnt the problem of running service, reliability is and if I know this service is reliably running every 12-15 minutes in Midday and I have to run errands or go to a major appointment, I will use the more reliable service. The Metro Rapid bus comparison though a good one loses steam because of a key component in reliability. If its scheduled to run every 5 minutes but its reliability due to traffic slips it to a 10 minute frequency the trip time becomes longer and rail still wins. Metrolink doesn't own its track -yet- or have the exclusive use of operating along the right-of-way at designated times, that will effect how frequently they operate the service especially on a single track corridor right-of-way. So with that the double track and additional sidings/passing tracks makes it required to do the 15-20 minute headway frequencies WITH the combined higher speed operation. A train moving at 79 mph needs a lot more distance to stop then a train moving at 55 mph, which then effects stop distances and distance between stations. It effects where trains will be at key moments to avoid them from having head-on collisions.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 9, 2011 16:39:42 GMT -8
I don't want to keep this Blue Line thread permanently on a Metrolink tangent, but: Metrolink doesn't own its track -yet- or have the exclusive use of operating along the right-of-way at designated times, that will effect how frequently they operate the service especially on a single track corridor right-of-way. Metrolink does own most of the track it operates over (through its member counties). (A quick calculation shows some 63% of the track miles.) On those lines, Metrolink is free to add and remove service as operational funding allows. So with that the double track and additional sidings/passing tracks makes it required to do the 15-20 minute headway frequencies WITH the combined higher speed operation. A train moving at 79 mph needs a lot more distance to stop then a train moving at 55 mph, which then effects stop distances and distance between stations. It effects where trains will be at key moments to avoid them from having head-on collisions. As you point out, Metrolink's ability to expand service will be constrained by all of its single track mileage. Single track territory, above all, limits the the ability to run bidirectional service and overall reliability of service. Safety is not really an issue, though.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 9, 2011 17:37:40 GMT -8
If it weren't for having to coordinate service with the blue line Metro would more than likely run shorter trains, more frequently on Expo. As it is they are constrained by having to run 3-car trains at rush hour and in in some multiple of blue line intervals. So they could run 3-car trains every 6, 12, or 18 minutes. I predicted months ago that they would run 12-minute rush hour service on Expo, except that I wasn't positive that they would need to run 3 cars, but they feel like they do. So Expo will stay in this same service pattern until it gets very busy. My guess is until Phase 2 opens. Off peak my guess is that Expo stays at 5 tph, but that they will go to one or two car trains.
12 minute headways aren't that bad. They aren't great, but it's not that bad.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 9, 2011 19:06:28 GMT -8
I don't want to keep this Blue Line thread permanently on a Metrolink tangent, but: Metrolink doesn't own its track -yet- or have the exclusive use of operating along the right-of-way at designated times, that will effect how frequently they operate the service especially on a single track corridor right-of-way. Metrolink does own most of the track it operates over (through its member counties). (A quick calculation shows some 63% of the track miles.) On those lines, Metrolink is free to add and remove service as operational funding allows. So with that the double track and additional sidings/passing tracks makes it required to do the 15-20 minute headway frequencies WITH the combined higher speed operation. A train moving at 79 mph needs a lot more distance to stop then a train moving at 55 mph, which then effects stop distances and distance between stations. It effects where trains will be at key moments to avoid them from having head-on collisions. As you point out, Metrolink's ability to expand service will be constrained by all of its single track mileage. Single track territory, above all, limits the the ability to run bidirectional service and overall reliability of service. Safety is not really an issue, though. Thank you for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 9, 2011 21:22:47 GMT -8
12 minute headways aren't that bad. They aren't great, but it's not that bad. At 12 minutes, it's just about long enough to kill the truly spontaneous strolls to the station to wait for the next train. You'll still be looking at the schedule, but if you just miss a train, 12 minutes is not the end of the world.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 9, 2011 21:40:46 GMT -8
As it is they are constrained by having to run 3-car trains at rush hour and in in some multiple of blue line intervals. So they could run 3-car trains every 6, 12, or 18 minutes. This doesnt make sense to me. The idea is that an hour is 60 minutes, and service needs to be a fraction of that. But that makes no sense in the real world. Rush hour, for example, is 3 hours, not 1. And theres no hard close or opening. So running a train every 4 minutes and 22 seconds causes absolutely no problem to the system. Over 3 hours, thats 41.22 trains. Just run 41 trains by adding some seconds to the dispatch of the last rush hour train. And done. And why does the gap between trains have to be equal? Whats wrong with: B - 2 minutes - Expo - 3 minutes 27 seconds - Blue - 2m12s - Expo - 3m49s - Blue - 1m59s - Expo Or any other "random" schedule. The customer isnt affected at all. 12 minutes is garbage if you want choice consumers to use the system. The reason people dont like transit is because of the waits. Imagine: 20 minute car ride 15 minute train ride (no traffic!) But add 11 minutes wait....and train loses. By a lot. You want a system people want to ride? Just look at Mexico City. 9 car trains, every 90 seconds. And their fare is 20 us cents for unlimited travel within the system (all 13 subway lines). Thats what transit commitment looks like.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2011 7:52:55 GMT -8
I don't think anybody said service has to divide the 60 minutes of an hour perfectly.
In running service, Metro would like to have even spacing of trains (a) on the Blue Line segment, and (b) on the Expo Line segment. This kind of schedule is easy for the riders to understand, and it makes dispatching much easier. The 12 minute B-X-B-0 pattern accomplishes this.
I've ridden on systems with a "dispatch as they come" approach. Like SF Muni in the '80s. Riders never know when a train is coming. And the slightest delay on one line makes the whole system fall apart. I've waited on a crowded train stuck in a tunnel while dispatchers worked to clear congestion on the common track. It's not fun.
Keep in mind the other constraint: available LRVs. Metro is going to have just enough vehicles to run service on both lines, following the planned schedule. The terminated Breda contract means we will have no new trains coming for several years. So Metro is limited by what it can do, especially given that it would like to have as little impact as possible on existing service.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 10, 2011 9:56:36 GMT -8
12 minutes is garbage if you want choice consumers to use the system. The reason people dont like transit is because of the waits. Imagine: 20 minute car ride 15 minute train ride (no traffic!) But add 11 minutes wait....and train loses. By a lot. You want a system people want to ride? Just look at Mexico City. 9 car trains, every 90 seconds. And their fare is 20 us cents for unlimited travel within the system (all 13 subway lines). Thats what transit commitment looks like. Let me ask in that comparison, How much does it cost to park and look for parking at that destination? If its very expensive like in Santa Monica or Downtown LA then even with the wait time transit looks pretty darn good.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 10, 2011 17:32:18 GMT -8
12 minute headways aren't that bad. They aren't great, but it's not that bad. At 12 minutes, it's just about long enough to kill the truly spontaneous strolls to the station to wait for the next train. You'll still be looking at the schedule, but if you just miss a train, 12 minutes is not the end of the world. I don't think so. If I remember right the cutoff where people feel like they don't need to look at a schedule is somewhere around 12-15 minutes. And as bad as just missing a train can be, it's not as bad as just missing a bus because you never really know when the next bus is coming regardless of what the schedule might say. Trains are much more reliable in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 10, 2011 17:42:04 GMT -8
As it is they are constrained by having to run 3-car trains at rush hour and in in some multiple of blue line intervals. So they could run 3-car trains every 6, 12, or 18 minutes. This doesnt make sense to me. The idea is that an hour is 60 minutes, and service needs to be a fraction of that. But that makes no sense in the real world. Rush hour, for example, is 3 hours, not 1. And theres no hard close or opening. So running a train every 4 minutes and 22 seconds causes absolutely no problem to the system. Over 3 hours, thats 41.22 trains. Just run 41 trains by adding some seconds to the dispatch of the last rush hour train. And done. And why does the gap between trains have to be equal? Whats wrong with: B - 2 minutes - Expo - 3 minutes 27 seconds - Blue - 2m12s - Expo - 3m49s - Blue - 1m59s - Expo Or any other "random" schedule. The customer isnt affected at all. 12 minutes is garbage if you want choice consumers to use the system. The reason people dont like transit is because of the waits. Imagine: 20 minute car ride 15 minute train ride (no traffic!) But add 11 minutes wait....and train loses. By a lot. You want a system people want to ride? Just look at Mexico City. 9 car trains, every 90 seconds. And their fare is 20 us cents for unlimited travel within the system (all 13 subway lines). Thats what transit commitment looks like. From the videos that Tony has posted Metro personnel have repeatedly stated that the blue and Expo headways will be at regular intervals and at a multiple of each other so that you don't eventually get trains arriving at the same time. For example if the blue line ran a train every 6 minutes and expo every 8 minutes after maybe 24 minutes they would both be scheduled to arrive at the same time at 7th/metro. Now they could just make one of the blue line or expo trains 8 minutes to compensate, but then they have to coordinate that with trains heading north and south across Washington and with turning trains at 7th/metro. From what I gather, metro thinks that things at Washington can get complicated pretty quickly so they want to have as much leeway as possible.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 10, 2011 23:29:07 GMT -8
I don't think anybody said service has to divide the 60 minutes of an hour perfectly. In running service, Metro would like to have even spacing of trains (a) on the Blue Line segment, and (b) on the Expo Line segment. This kind of schedule is easy for the riders to understand, and it makes dispatching much easier. The 12 minute B-X-B-0 pattern accomplishes this. I've ridden on systems with a "dispatch as they come" approach. Like SF Muni in the '80s. Riders never know when a train is coming. And the slightest delay on one line makes the whole system fall apart. I've waited on a crowded train stuck in a tunnel while dispatchers worked to clear congestion on the common track. It's not fun. Keep in mind the other constraint: available LRVs. Metro is going to have just enough vehicles to run service on both lines, following the planned schedule. The terminated Breda contract means we will have no new trains coming for several years. So Metro is limited by what it can do, especially given that it would like to have as little impact as possible on existing service. "I don't think anybody said service has to divide the 60 minutes of an hour perfectly." Thats how train people plan their times. 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 minute intervals....all fit into an hour. It's extremely rare to find a system that schedules trains every 11 minutes. Its always 10 or 12. "Riders never know when a train is coming" Thats right. Even with a "perfect" schedule of every 6 minutes, riders dont know when the next train is coming, because you're not supposed to look at a schedule for a metro system. Nobody says "we need to be at 7th at 12:23pm to catch the train!". You just walk in and home for the least possible wait, And with GPS tracking and countdown clocks, "random" arrival times work perfect. If the screen says: Next trains 2 minutes, 3 minutes 6 minutes Doesnt matter, you know your next train is almost here. Ive also waited in traffic jams on the Boston green line. Yes, sometime you wait 30 seconds in the tunnel. But trains arrive at the stops every 40 seconds, and people prefer waiting on the train (with the illusion of going somewhere) than waiting on the platform (where the hell is the train!)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 11, 2011 8:31:22 GMT -8
Let's put this into perspective. Since the recession/economic downturn started a few years ago there have been massive service level cuts at many transit agencies in the US. Bus routes eliminated, Sunday service discontinued, 30 minute off peak trains, etc. Yet Metro comparatively has cut very little even as the money that they get from Sacramento has been reduced. The bus routes cut and other service changes have been peanuts compared to most places. And now a new light rail line will soon be opening that will cost quite a bit to operate. Bus routes have been cut just to be able to afford to operate it. I don't know what it might take to run at 6 minute rush hour headways, but it would almost certainly involve either more bus cuts or service level reductions on one or more train lines.
I think that the current plan is not only acceptable, but it's about as good as they can do given their financial and operational constraints. With 12-minute headways, Expo will get 15 rail cars per hour in each direction. That's only one car less than the gold line runs (15 cars/56 min = 16.1 cars/hr) and that's been open for a decade.
When Phase 2 opens I'm sure that they will rework the schedule. The current plan (last I heard) was to run both the blue and expo lines every 5-6 minutes during rush hour and probably 10-12 minutes off peak. That's only 4-5 years away, so we probably need to make the best of it unless there is some infusion of cash or someone has an idea of what to cut to make it happen sooner.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jun 11, 2011 9:44:05 GMT -8
From a customer's perspective, there are two categories of transit service frequency: frequent enough that you just turn up and go, and infrequent ones where you'd prefer to have a timetable. The dividing line between the two depends on what the customer would consider an acceptable wait time in that particular situation, but for the case of Metro bus and rail service, it's somewhere around 12 minute headways. In either case, there's a huge obvious benefit to equally spaced headways, which is that it helps to equalize the load on the trains. And if you have a long headway followed by a short headway, the first train/bus will be heavily loaded, and the second one will be lightly loaded. The heavily loaded train/bus will need more dwell time at the stations, which allows the lightly loaded train to catch up, and that's how you get train or bus bunching.
In the infrequent case, the actual times in the timetable matter, and having the same times past the hour every hour makes it much easier to remember the timetable. If the policy is applied systemwide, it also means that the connections work out the same way every hour. Imagine having to transfer from a route that runs every 37 minutes to a route that runs every 23 minutes and figuring out if you have to run to make the connection or if it will work out fine without that. From a rail operations standpoint, having nicely coordinated headways also means that interlining works out better and the conflicts at junctions are the same every time. Presumably, the Expo and Blue line timetable will be designed so that the opposite-direction Blue Line trains pass each other at Flower/Washington, as would the Expo Line trains, to minimize the chance of conflict between inbound Expo and outbound Blue Line trains at the junction.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 11, 2011 18:36:43 GMT -8
crzwdjk, I agree that a well timed system can be great for transfers. But metro is too big to coordinate transfers. Too many lines, too many directions. Once you get this big, you should coordinate transfers by making all service frequent enough that waiting is minimal.
I also agree that when trains re infrequent, equal spacing is good for crowd control.
1:10pm, 1:12pm, 1:14pm and 1:42pm is terrible because the 1:12 and 14 wil run empty and the 42 will be packed.
But again, we shouldnt be talked about such big gaps. Everything metro should be discussing should be under 10 minutes.
Sp 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 6 minutes wont create congestion issues.
bluelineshawn, you're right, almost every transit system in the country cut hours, raised fares or did both. As far as I can tell, the MBTA was the only system in the country to do neither (and actually increased frequencies on the orange line to 8 minutes all day).
The interesting part is, road repaving and widening seemed to chug on like usual. In fact, it seems like more roads were repaved in the past 3 years than in the past 10 (my anecdotal experience).
Funny how that works. What could the 405 expansion monies do to service levels? Could easily pay for double the frequencies on every train and bus line for many years.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 11, 2011 20:41:20 GMT -8
The interesting part is, road repaving and widening seemed to chug on like usual. In fact, it seems like more roads were repaved in the past 3 years than in the past 10 (my anecdotal experience). Funny how that works. What could the 405 expansion monies do to service levels? Could easily pay for double the frequencies on every train and bus line for many years. I'll grant you that highway/road spending seems to always be on auto-pilot, while transit funding is always a battle to obtain. That said, at least on the Westside, the surface streets are absolutely brutal. Third-world quality. The City of L.A. seems to be content to just wait it out until its financial picture improves. I'm not complaining: They have to make that call and every penny saved is another teacher/fireman with a job. Re: Your thoughts on the 405 money. I have the same notion about the 710 project. Why not take those billions and buy a million people in L.A. County a transit pass for a year and an electric mo-ped?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 12, 2011 23:51:28 GMT -8
It makes no sense to run all that extra service and have it viewed as no one is riding on it. I hope this isn't the real reason Metro is using. Running 1-car trains every 6 minutes at rush hour would result in fairly full trains (most seats filled), and they would be more full than 3-car trains every 12 minutes. Metro likely wants to run less frequent service to save money on operations. I feel this makes little sense, both because it will only save a few million dollars versus a $2 billion dollar capital expenditure, and because it will lead to a confusion schedule compared the Blue Line. Alternating Expo-Blue-Expo-Blue is much easier to understand
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 13, 2011 0:14:12 GMT -8
Metro currently lacks the train cars necessary to operate the Expo Line at 6 minute intervals. Additionally, the service is new so it'll need time to build up ridership, believe it or not 12 minutes *is* frequent in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jun 13, 2011 8:26:07 GMT -8
I think part of the reason for operating longer trains less frequently there's some desire to be able to switch trains between Blue and Expo at 7th/Metro. As far as regular service intervals go, it's not going to be too much of an issue since the shared section is so small.
And jamesinclair, when trains are that frequent, it's generally because the ridership is high and the crowds build up that much faster. So if you have alternating 6 minute and 3 minute intervals, the trains after the 6-minute intervals will still be twice as full, assuming a uniform arrival rate of passengers. And with closer headways, each minute of delay is a proportionately bigger fraction of the normal headway and causes that much more crowding on the delayed train, which increases the risk of further delay. When things get bad enough with the trains, it's not unusual to see some trains skipping stops to catch up to the schedule.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 14, 2011 11:02:42 GMT -8
I think part of the reason for operating longer trains less frequently there's some desire to be able to switch trains between Blue and Expo at 7th/Metro. That's a very good point. Considering that 7th Street / Metrocenter is a terminal station with only 2 platforms, running trains every 3 minutes (20 per hour) is a bit of a stretch if each service needs to be separate. With 3-car trains on both Expo and the Blue Line, there is much more flexibility (and the Blue Line already has to have 3-car trains) Okay, then I concede that the split headways plan is okay for now. But I hope they can buy some more trains soon, so that service can be increased and equalized on both lines.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 23, 2011 11:22:35 GMT -8
We had a discussion about improving the Pico Station at the Convention Center / LA Live / Staples, recently. It looks like the Sierra Club has picked up this idea, and is working to get Pico Station improvements included in any deal for a new Farmer's Field NFL football stadium plan: la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/FarmersFieldPicoStationScopingPPT1.pdf"Pico Station - A 20 year old station that looks like it’s 50 years old." [That's about right] Their ideas include "Construct additional platforms of wider width to improve passenger loading and reduce passenger discomfort, thus speeding LRT operations. • Include additional storage tracks within the station area to facilitate immediate introduction of rail service after an event" The additional platform is great. I'm not sure that extra tracks are needed, however, especially considering the value of land downtown. Metro can schedule the additional trains to arrive at the right time, with good planning. "Relocate ticket machines to areas closer to the LA Live Event centers and away from station entrances and platform . • Control pedestrian movements via physical separation with a bridge or visual separation with a traffic office" The additional ticket machines are a great idea. This is one place where TAP cars are great too, if it becomes possible to just tap and go, without visiting at TVM. Also, making day passes a better deal, or offering round-trip tickets, would help. A pedestrian grade-separation is an expensive idea, though if it can be integrated with any new building constructed on the current parking lots and the run-down buildings next to the station, it might be useful at other times as well. But grade crossings should be fine, if the signals give plenty of time for pedestrians to cross, and people are not lined up at TVMs.
|
|