|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 21, 2011 17:09:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 21, 2011 17:38:12 GMT -8
LOL, can you fix the subforum title?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 22, 2011 13:14:33 GMT -8
I didn't create it... I just found it first  |
|
cp
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by cp on Jan 22, 2011 15:17:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jan 26, 2011 23:51:43 GMT -8
I was expecting to see a real alternatives analysis by now. Anyone know when it will be ready? I hope they give the DMU mode a serious consideration. BRT would not have a good route to follow north from the end of the right-of-way in Paramount, and LRT would not have a good route all the way to Downtown LA, without building an expensive new route. DMUs could share the Metrolink tracks (and eventually the Union Station run-thru tracks), and still provide frequent service with fiarly close-spaced stops, like electric light rail transit. The only real difference is the lack of overhead wire, which makes it easier to share tracks with Metrolink and Freight. Unfortunately, the archaic FRA rules mean that DMUs in the United States are too heavy and have poorer acceleration, but with the new positive train control system for Metrolink (required by law before 2015), perhaps the FRA would allow the use of light, fast-accelerating DMUs, with just as good as performance as electric light rail. In this case, the trains could stop every 1 to 2 miles south of Paramount, and still average 40 mph along the route (with fewer stops between Paramount and Union Station). A trip from Cerritos to Union Station might take 30 minutes, and the 30 mile trip from central Santa Ana to Union Station could take only 45 minutes (currently, the Pacific Surfliner is scheduled to take 53 minutes). Stops every mile would drop average speed, but it would still be as fast as light rail This is quite achievable with cheap, existing DMUs, such as the Stadler Regioshuttle, with max speed 75 mph after 92 seconds: zierke.com/shasta_route/pages/46ash-central.html. They cost about $3 million, or as much as 3 articulated, natural-gas or hybrid buses. Now, I love the quiet of electric trains, and the acceleration can be a little better, especially at high speeds. And I know we will run out of oil eventually. But for a moderate to low density route like this, DMUs would be a great start, and could be upgraded to modern EMU, electric regional train service, when the rest of Metrolink electrifies, someday. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jan 26, 2011 23:52:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 27, 2011 11:56:05 GMT -8
When the original MTA discontinued rail service to Bellflower in 1958, they did so with the knowledge that any substitute bus line would have to zig-zag along several streets to serve the same territory, because the ex-PE ran diagonally across the landscape.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 27, 2011 13:50:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 27, 2011 16:22:35 GMT -8
I was expecting to see a real alternatives analysis by now. Anyone know when it will be ready? Martha Welborne, Metro's Executive Director, Countywide Planning, gave a high-level presentation on the Measure R transit projects last night at the Citizens Advisory Council. Here's what her PowerPoint said about this project: PE ROW/West Santa Ana Branch Corridor
Measure R Project $240 million (2008$)
Status
- SCAG is leading the effort to conduct Alternative Analysis (AA)
- Alternatives to be considered:
- No Build
- TSM
- BRT
- LRT
- High Speed Rail
- DMU
- EMU
- AA expected to complete by Winter 2012 for Metro and OCTA Board consideration thereafter
SCAG is lead agency because it crosses two counties. Winter 2012 (one year from now, I presume) gives a timeline. The $240 M Measure R budget really isn't enough to do much of anything, espcially in light of today's Metro board action on Item 21: B. Approve that for Measure R funds, such unified process and policy shall include a requirement where Measure R funding (including any prior Measure R expenditures) shall not exceed the amount shown in the "New Sales Tax Total" column of the Measure R expenditure plan; |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 27, 2011 17:13:15 GMT -8
Since we are comparing maps... My version has West Santa Ana Branch continue on rail right of way to Slauson and then Avalon/San Pedro to Downtown LA... maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=33.881247,-118.117447&spn=0.368252,0.727158&z=11&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1 |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jan 27, 2011 17:43:22 GMT -8
240 million isn't enough to build anything at Los Angeles Metro prices. But in Germany, they build light rail on old right of ways for 1.5 million per mile (with 30 minute service), and Ottawa built a DMU-operated rail line for 3 million per mile. (Both projects involved replacing ties and rails, so it was about the same as installing a totally new single-track rail line). Marin County is planning to build SMART (a mainly single-track, DMU line) at 8 million per mile in year of expenditure dollars, in about 10 years. If we are willing to limit service to every 30 minutes, 90% of the route could be single-track, as in the above systems. The part in Los Angeles County to the Green Line is less than 9 miles, which gives us over 24 million per mile. The route necessary to connect to Metrolink is another 8 miles. So if we can build something for 14 million per mile, we could do Union Station to Cerritos with just Measure R funds. (Orange County would have to pay for their side of the project, but at that cost they might do it). By comparison, the "dual track" Orange Line BRT cost about 279 excluding right-of-way costs, or $20 million per mile. At the costs of SMART or twice the costs of Ottawa's system, we should be able to build double-track all the way, and have stations every 2 miles approximately (for a total of 8 stations, plus LAUS, or about one per city). This would need to be almost entirely at-grade, except for the river crossing, no fancy stations, and relatively cheap, off-the-shelf DMUs, but it could be done. But considering how much Metro spends on consultants, lawsuits and engineering, and the delays caused by NIMBYs, EIRs, etc, I am not certain that we can do it. Here's the German system that cost $1.5 million per mile in West Germany, in the early 2000's: zierke.com/web-page/dissen-osnabrueckThe O-train in Ottawa cost $20 million in 2002 for 5 miles and 5 stations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-TrainSMART is projected to cost under 500 million for 70 miles (which is actually 7 million per mile), but bids are not yet it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma-Marin_Area_Rail_Transit#2010_-_Overall_cost.2C_funding_shortfall.2C_responses |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 7, 2011 15:50:49 GMT -8
If Metro is going to operate some form of train on this it seems like they might want to connect to the Green/Blue Lines at Rosa Parks Station, makes the station that much more a destination, especially with it being redeveloped in the near future they could leave room for another boarding platform or concourse. This would be avoiding the expense of running yet another line all of the way up to downtown Los Angeles when by the time this is ready we'll have two trains heading south (Blue & Crenshaw Lines) and they will be connected by the lateral Green Line.
As for the mode of the rolling stock given the limited funds I still not convinced that Metro (if it operates it) will have something built out that requires diesel such as the DMUs or put it on one track, it just isn't built into their motifs and doesn't meet what their standards are, which up until this point has been double track high platform light rail, maybe if it was operated by MetroLink or OCTA, but probably not a Metro sort of setup. If it were taken over by MetroLink it nearly duplicate the service offered by the Orange County Line.
I'm not sure of the density numbers of this region of SoCal or what the bus and MetroLink riderships look like but if it were to be a more frequently serviced kind of bypass of the MetroLink trains between Los Angeles and OC it would more likely be double light rail with very wide station spacings coupled with transit center connections to buses and (ugh) huge park and ride lots (even as gasoline pushes past $4/gal). Seems like that might be the most "right" thing to do as it would be cheaper to go back and build in-fill stations than to electrify a passenger line with the climbing prices of crude and an increasingly tone-deaf federal government allocating scarce funds. My 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 7, 2011 16:12:31 GMT -8
^ That's certainly a possibility; however, continuing on the north-south ROW would allow metro to expand service to the cities of Huntington Park, Cudahy, Bell and Maywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2011 21:04:45 GMT -8
^ That's certainly a possibility; however, continuing on the north-south ROW would allow metro to expand service to the cities of Huntington Park, Cudahy, Bell and Maywood. Yes, and these are three of the more densely populated cities in the south-east region of LA county, with a high percentage of current transit riders already. This line will be 4 to 6 miles away from the LOSSAN corridor where the Metrolink Orange County Line currently operates. That's a huge distance for transit. And in particular, the cities on the potential alignment between Union Station and Paramount are a long way from any fast transit service - the blue line is generally 2 to 4 miles east (15 to 25 minutes by bus or bike), and Metrolink's alignment is even father to the east in this section. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh B on Apr 8, 2011 8:01:22 GMT -8
I feel metrolink type DMU service would be redundant; I prefer light rail. If someones ultimate goal is downtown LA/Union Station and the chosen mode is light rail, on the south end, we could connect the light rail to the Santa Ana Metrolink station and ride up from there. We could also have the green line extended into the norwalk high speed rail/metrolink station. Light rail would be a feeder into the current OC Metrolink/High speed rail line, rather than creating a completely new service.
The possibility of having LACMTA light rail in orange county would also compel them to start building more local rail service... not to mention, this coupled with the speed of the green line, could be a fast, direct connection of orange county to LAX thereby bridging Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and OC theme parks into one accessible system.
Disney is always willing to pitch in when it benefits them and with Anaheim planning on building their new ARC/Aconnext system connecting ARTIC/Highspeed rail with the convention center and disney; this system [elevated fixed guideway] or LACMTA light rail could be extended along the abandoned right of way between katella and cerritos ave to the Santa ana branch corridor in Stanton.
All of this providing many feeder connections into the Metrolink/high speed rail OC corridor. With DMU service, the only benefit is direct access to union station; but Union is 15-20 min away when High speed rail goes to OC; all we need to do is feed into that line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 9, 2011 15:03:27 GMT -8
I feel metrolink type DMU service would be redundant; I prefer light rail. DMUs are very similar to electric light rail vehicles. They can accelerate just as fast, if designed light-weight as is done for many routes in Europe. The advantages are : 1) lower initial cost (no need to string wires overhead), and 2) ability to share tracks with tall freight trains on the way to Union Station. It is also more sensible to use DMUs if the line would start out as mainly single-track. A single-track line could have service every 30 minutes to start, or even every 15 minutes with a large about of second track, but would still be half the cost of light rail at grade. With the service being a little less frequent, there would be less pressure for expensive grade separations. Of course, if the line were expanded to 2 or 3 tracks in the future, it could also be electrified, and service could include local trains every 5 to 10 minutes and express trains every 15 to 30 minutes (if there was a 3rd track in enough places). Many railways operate this way in Europe and around New York, providing both fast service for long-distance commuters (headed to downtown LA) and local service within walking distance of every point of the line. But in the short term, there is not enough money in the Measure R pot for electric light rail. Even if half of it is single-track and DMUs are used at first it may be hard to get the whole line completed with the current budget, but it would at least be possible with good cost management, as I detailed in an earlier post, above. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 9, 2011 15:47:09 GMT -8
Jeisenbe, the problem with DMU service is that it would mean less stations, likely reducing ridership, and ultimately, revenue.
When it comes to searching for funding, we need to accept that building everything as soon as possible is NOT the best answer long-term.
We don't have enough money in Measure R for LRT? So, we look for other sources of funding!
|
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 9, 2011 21:45:52 GMT -8
I feel metrolink type DMU service would be redundant; I prefer light rail. DMUs are very similar to electric light rail vehicles. They can accelerate just as fast, if designed light-weight as is done for many routes in Europe. The problem is that The FRA has not and for the time being will not allow a light weigh DMU to share tracks with freight. If you are ever in north county and ride the Sprinter, that is what you will get. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 9, 2011 23:17:52 GMT -8
My thought on the "cheap" option of some train project with single-tracking with 30-minute headways.
At that point -- where you're not adding a frequent rapid service -- why not just spend some of that money to do TSM in the form of boosting service on the OC Metrolink line to every 30 minutes?
I'm just thinking about this the following way: Not every transportation problem requires building new train tracks. Many in L.A. due, for certain, but throwing $270 million at infrastructure to make marginal improvements could be impetuous.
Or, why not just hold onto that money for a while and see if you can get State or Federal grants to allow construction of light rail or BRT that's on par with what we already have in the system in terms of headways and station spacing?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2011 18:58:18 GMT -8
Or, why not just hold onto that money for a while and see if you can get State or Federal grants to allow construction of light rail or BRT that's on par with what we already have in the system in terms of headways and station spacing? That's my thinking. It might take a little longer to build, sure. But the reward is a corridor compatible with the majority of Metro's existing rail lines. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2011 23:12:36 GMT -8
We could certainly do better by improving existing Metrolink service with 30 minute headways all day long (and 15 minutes during the peak) on all lines, especially the OC line. And Metrolink needs lightweight, modern DMUs with good acceleration on all of the current lines. The improved acceleration would improve trip times by 15 to 30 minutes.
But assuming that something "has" to be built on the Santa Ana branch, for political reasons, I would like to keep the cost low, instead spending the money on improving the rest of Metrolink service, or adding express Metrolink trains along the Blue Line to Long Beach, or extending the Subway to Santa Monica, or building the Vermont South subway, or any number of other worthy projects.
I actually think this line is a low priority, unless it can be done at a cheap cost, considering the low density of employment and destinations along most of the route, and low residential density south of the Green Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 11, 2011 19:08:08 GMT -8
I actually think this line is a low priority, unless it can be done at a cheap cost, considering the low density of employment and destinations along most of the route, and low residential density south of the Green Line. Well, when it gets into Downtown Santa Ana, the density goes up a bit again. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh B on Apr 12, 2011 9:50:27 GMT -8
Yes, there are other, more "worthy" projects that should be built before this line, but the reality is, Measure R money must be spent on Measure R projects. This corridor seems like it goes nowhere now, but once the green line extends into LAX and Anaheim opens its elevated people mover in 2015 [yes they are building one] this will be a direct connection [if done with light rail] between LAX and OC employment/tourist centers like Disneyland. Even though this isnt the most dense area of LA county, it still parallels to cities like Minneapolis, St Louis, Salt Lake City who all have light rail systems.
Im glad this discussion is out there, but I cannot agree with the redundancy of metrolink type service along this corridor when this corridor can feed into the OC metrolink/high speed rail at 3 places [norwalk, anaheim, santa ana], leaving union station a mere 15 min away.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 3, 2011 14:35:55 GMT -8
Warning: No image may be posted over 780 pixels wide. Police your own work when you post, or seek help from others on the board with more technical skills.  Interesting alignment... Not sure how the line is supposed to get to Long Beach Blvd when the ROW ends at Garfield/Rosecrans. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 3, 2011 15:03:11 GMT -8
I think it's safe to say this is a very rough, conceptual alignment. As the diagram suggest, it could be anything, in theory, from BRT to HSR. The ultimate technology will probably determine if/how the line proceeds. Even the map listed on the Metro Project Page shows it ending at the Green Line, so it's not like the map above is the authoritative map. www.metro.net/projects/west-santa-ana/ |
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 28, 2011 16:16:20 GMT -8
Just wanted to update this thread SCAG has finalized the list of alternatives for study on the Santa Ana Branch ROW The List of Alternatives are 1. No Build 2. TSM 3. BRT 4. Streetcar 5. Light Rail 6. Low Speed Maglev DMU and High Speed Rail were dropped from the potential alternatives considered, and the maglev option was downgraded for lower speed operation. From summary of the last community outreach Light Rail seems to be the preferred mode for this corridor. Here is the new Community presentation for the project www.pacificelectriccorridor.com/documents/PEROWBOARDS_june2011revsions_draft3.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 31, 2011 8:43:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 31, 2011 16:18:36 GMT -8
Makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 1, 2011 10:44:22 GMT -8
Why wouldn't Santa Ana just ask for the LRT to be extended to the Metrolink station instead of building a separate system?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 1, 2011 18:07:24 GMT -8
Why wouldn't Santa Ana just ask for the LRT to be extended to the Metrolink station instead of building a separate system? probably because they have OCTA funding, funding that was earmarked for local circulators after the Center Line LRT blew up. |
|
