|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 3, 2018 9:45:08 GMT -8
Here is the data presented by Metro staff for the eight "northern options" at this week's meetings (blue is good, red is bad): Now, I am not going to directly say that Metro staff "cooks the results" of its analyses to favor certain options over other. However, I will say, from what I see, Metro staff tends to present to the public the the results of its analysis of the various options, without any clue to how it came to those results. And this does cause me to question whether or not the outcome is being preselected. Anyway, here is my analysis: - Options E and G are very expensive options because they are almost completely underground in the northern end, over a long distance. But they also have the most daily boardings.
- Option C has the best cost/new rider/year (a BS number which apparently assumes a service period of 316 years). But due to outrage in Little Tokyo, it seems this option is DOA anyway.
- Option H is the cheapest. But it has the fewest riders, because it terminates in an obscure corner of the "Arts District". (However, I was assured by staff that the project cost includes extending the Purple Line to 6th/Santa Fe).
All of this information will be going to the Planning Committee, and then the Metro Board, this month (May). At that point, they will narrow the number of options to further study. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 3, 2018 23:09:56 GMT -8
I like option E, simply for the fact that I believe someone will eventually see that a DTLA Loop will be good for all the LRT lines. A segment with heavy ridership, such as the Expo Line, shouldn't be running empty cars to East L.A. when everyone alights in DTLA. It would just make more sense to loop those cars around DTLA and send them back to Santa Monica. This would apply to the Long Beach Blue Line segment as well (I can't believe that after the Connector opens these will all be segments of much longer lines, but that's what it is.) There SHOULD be Metro Rail Lines such as Long Beach to DTLA Loop and Long Beach to Pasadena and East L.A. to DTLA Loop and East L.A. to Santa Monica and etc. There's potential for something greater, but only with option E and access tracks into the Connector.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 4, 2018 11:56:52 GMT -8
Option E doesn't provide any opportunity for DTLA loop because there is no junction planned at Little Tokyo.
A loop circulation will require a new junction at Little Tokyo to allow east bound Expo line and north bound Blue line to turn south on Alameda, which is NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN. We will be ripping up the new station and junction under construction now and building a 3rd Little Tokyo station and junction in 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 4, 2018 12:47:26 GMT -8
A loop is a pretty good idea. But I would probably put the wye junction east of 1st/Alameda. Like at Vignes. But again it comes down to: how many times are we going to rip up Little Tokyo? It would be great if we could design the system holistically, rather than as a series of projects, each designed to appeal to a narrow constituency. Ideally (IMHO), Downtown should have two loops: - An LRT loop along Washington, Flower, 2nd Street and Alameda, fully grade-separated, with 3-4 tracks along the entire ROW, and full-wye junctions.
- A Purple Line loop which heads west from 7th/Flower to the Arts District, and then heads north through the Arts District to Union Station, and then back along the existing ROW.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 4, 2018 12:50:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 4, 2018 17:25:06 GMT -8
Streetblog has a summary on the options on the table: la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/01/metro-west-santa-ana-branch-rail-preferred-routes-to-go-to-metro-board-this-month/Really, when you look at this, it is clear option G is the best. It gets people to where the jobs are in DTLA, and has potential for easy transfers to both Red/Purple and Blue/Expo lines. Option E gets you near Union Station but requires back track to the center of the DTLA. Also E only gets near Union Station not to Union Station... it is going to be a disaster trying to transfer there. Option F requires double transfer to get to Expo/Eastside line, which is a non-starter in my opinion. Option H must be an inside joke. Option E is the best for the way that things are now, but I’m not sure that it’s the best option for 30 or even 10 years from now. With run through tracks, HSR, metrolink electrification, and other improvements, it’s very possible that Union station will have double or even triple its current usage just 20 years from now. It may very well be the busiest rail station outside NYC. And because of HSR and metrolink improvements, the percentage of passengers arriving and departing union station by rail will likely go up. All of this may lead to increased development and business in the area around the station. Based on current plans in 10 years union station would likely have 10 red line trains per hour, 10 purple line trains per hour, and 10-12 blue line trains per hour. Is that enough to handle the anticipated passengers? Probably, but it’s a number that may be constraining. I guess that my point is that I agree with you, but I can see where people looking back in just two decades may think that we got it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 12, 2018 11:06:58 GMT -8
Thanks bzcat. There's also no plans to update the switch at Flower St. and Washington Bl. to accommodate both north and south bound trains. After all is said and done, the point is that EVERY TIME Metro decides to add new routes or extend existing ones, it's so overtly piecemeal that it hurts. (We only have to go as far as the Expo Line to notice the lack of matchy-matchy from one phase to the other!)
Option E wouldn't result in a loop, but it would get us closer to one than some of the others. If only Metro could go with two options--such as it's persuing with the Gold Line into Whittier and South El Monte--then it would be nice to get both E and G.
As for the WSAB ala HRT: Wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 12, 2018 16:11:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 13, 2018 10:00:51 GMT -8
man, I still like 5th street with stations at Pershing Square and Flower. Oh well. What's with option F possibly running to the east side of LAUS? Or is that for using a different platform than the Gold Line on the west side? I would think it would have to use the Gold Line tracks to avoid the run-through tracks, by staying to the west of the RR tracks. And option E uses an underground station at LAUS? That would be a level below the Red/Purple lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 13, 2018 12:24:09 GMT -8
man, I still like 5th street with stations at Pershing Square and Flower. Oh well. What's with option F possibly running to the east side of LAUS? Or is that for using a different platform than the Gold Line on the west side? I would think it would have to use the Gold Line tracks to avoid the run-through tracks, by staying to the west of the RR tracks. And option E uses an underground station at LAUS? That would be a level below the Red/Purple lines? According to the report, they cannot have a station at Pershing Square and at 5th/Flower. metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3503067&GUID=67B4ED39-988C-494F-A86B-FDD9F90E0E4F&FullText=1 |
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 13, 2018 14:09:54 GMT -8
I vote for E. Naturally, it's the most expensive option, but the best IMHO. man, I still like 5th street with stations at Pershing Square and Flower. Oh well. What's with option F possibly running to the east side of LAUS? Or is that for using a different platform than the Gold Line on the west side? I would think it would have to use the Gold Line tracks to avoid the run-through tracks, by staying to the west of the RR tracks. And option E uses an underground station at LAUS? That would be a level below the Red/Purple lines? |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 13, 2018 21:57:43 GMT -8
man, I still like 5th street with stations at Pershing Square and Flower. Oh well. What's with option F possibly running to the east side of LAUS? Or is that for using a different platform than the Gold Line on the west side? I would think it would have to use the Gold Line tracks to avoid the run-through tracks, by staying to the west of the RR tracks. And option E uses an underground station at LAUS? That would be a level below the Red/Purple lines? According to the report, they cannot have a station at Pershing Square and at 5th/Flower. metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3503067&GUID=67B4ED39-988C-494F-A86B-FDD9F90E0E4F&FullText=1Here's my take on what Metro is saying. They're not talking about running it north on Alameda to 4th or 5th, then heading westward on 5th (as I was, as per that preliminary sketched route) - they've tossed out that route. They're talking about north on Broadway, then west on 5th. The 90 degree turn from Broadway to 5th apparently precludes a station at Pershing Square. If the downtown option (option G) goes to 7th street, that's a long walk from 8th street to Red/Purple on 7th. If it goes to Pershing Square, then we have another N/S downtown line and downtown really needs an E/W, instead. And it doesn't hit Blue/Gold until they extend it to Broadway/2nd. If it did that, that would be a good route. What about Wilshire, instead? A short walk to 7th. The bores are going to be deep, anyways, to go under Blue/Gold. They could look at boring deep under the Walgreen's (617 7th) and 626 Wilshire to get to Wilshire. To allow for elevation change, put the station more towards Fig. Also put the cross-station walkway under Fig rather than Flower (as Blue/Gold is already under the street there). The Lebanon St (alley) might be available, too - depends on building foundations. If Option E goes deep to go under the Red/Purple, that'd be alright. Of course we now have a new level underneath Red/Purple. Lots of escalator action. The illustration shows a possible dead-end, though. I can't believe they would keep it shallow and have further extension blocked by the Red/Purple. Option F integrates the best with LAUS, but doesn't hit Gold as has been said. Not bad. I'd like option G on Wilshire if possible first, then option G with a Broadway/2nd connection. If neither of those can be done, the rest are about equal in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 14, 2018 2:19:48 GMT -8
Here's my take on what Metro is saying. They're not talking about running it north on Alameda to 4th or 5th, then heading westward on 5th (as I was, as per that preliminary sketched route) - they've tossed out that route. They're talking about north on Broadway, then west on 5th. The 90 degree turn from Broadway to 5th apparently precludes a station at Pershing Square. If the downtown option (option G) goes to 7th street, that's a long walk from 8th street to Red/Purple on 7th. If it goes to Pershing Square, then we have another N/S downtown line and downtown really needs an E/W, instead. And it doesn't hit Blue/Gold until they extend it to Broadway/2nd. If it did that, that would be a good route. What about Wilshire, instead? A short walk to 7th. The bores are going to be deep, anyways, to go under Blue/Gold. They could look at boring deep under the Walgreen's (617 7th) and 626 Wilshire to get to Wilshire. To allow for elevation change, put the station more towards Fig. Also put the cross-station walkway under Fig rather than Flower (as Blue/Gold is already under the street there). The Lebanon St (alley) might be available, too - depends on building foundations. If Option E goes deep to go under the Red/Purple, that'd be alright. Of course we now have a new level underneath Red/Purple. Lots of escalator action. The illustration shows a possible dead-end, though. I can't believe they would keep it shallow and have further extension blocked by the Red/Purple. Option F integrates the best with LAUS, but doesn't hit Gold as has been said. Not bad. I'd like option G on Wilshire if possible first, then option G with a Broadway/2nd connection. If neither of those can be done, the rest are about equal in my book. Your take makes sense. I was thinking in terms of the old preliminary route. It makes sense that their point is under the current G route to Pershing Square, a 90 degree turn toward 5th/Flower would create issues for creating a station at Pershing Square. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 14, 2018 15:28:51 GMT -8
I vote for E. Naturally, it's the most expensive option, but the best IMHO. man, I still like 5th street with stations at Pershing Square and Flower. Oh well. What's with option F possibly running to the east side of LAUS? Or is that for using a different platform than the Gold Line on the west side? I would think it would have to use the Gold Line tracks to avoid the run-through tracks, by staying to the west of the RR tracks. And option E uses an underground station at LAUS? That would be a level below the Red/Purple lines? Metro's own analysis shows most WASB riders will end up in west part of downtown or areas west of downtown (lots of SE LA County to West LA/Santa Monica commutes). So actually option G is the best. Option E gets WASB riders to Union Station a 1/4 mile in front of Union Station where these riders will then have to walk about 10 minutes to reach Red/Purple to transfer to their intended destinations. It's only "best" if you completely ignore the transfer quality. My guess is that option G will show far greater ridership under a full EIR. Read Scott's Twitter thread on this topic... he lays it out pretty good.  And BTW, the heavy rail extension option that Streetsblog advocated kills two birds with one stone... it will serve both Union Station and downtown transit core with one ride. I'm not convinced the cost will be lower vs. light rail as Streetsblog thinks but it is the kind of out of box thinking that we never expects from Metro. |
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on May 15, 2018 8:00:36 GMT -8
If the downtown option (option G) goes to 7th street, that's a long walk from 8th street to Red/Purple on 7th. If it goes to Pershing Square, then we have another N/S downtown line and downtown really needs an E/W, instead. And it doesn't hit Blue/Gold until they extend it to Broadway/2nd. If it did that, that would be a good route. Why do you assume that an underground station 500 feet away from another underground station wouldn't have an underground in-system connection to it? I really can't imagine that not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 15, 2018 8:34:46 GMT -8
If the downtown option (option G) goes to 7th street, that's a long walk from 8th street to Red/Purple on 7th. That is the current plan: head west under 8th Street, and terminate at 8th/Flower, with a mezzanine connection to 7th/Metro Center. What about Wilshire, instead? A short walk to 7th. The bores are going to be deep, anyways, to go under Blue/Gold. They could look at boring deep under the Walgreen's (617 7th) and 626 Wilshire to get to Wilshire. To allow for elevation change, put the station more towards Fig. Also put the cross-station walkway under Fig rather than Flower (as Blue/Gold is already under the street there). The Lebanon St (alley) might be available, too - depends on building foundations. I love the idea of putting the station at Wilshire/Flower or 6th/Flower (in fact I advocated that elsewhere). It would bring people very close to the Library, City National Plaza, etc. I also like the other idea, of taking 8th Street west but then curving the line north under Hope Street, with a stop at 7th/Hope. The tracks would be at the same level as the existing Blue/Expo tracks, and parallel to them. This would allow for a future northwest-bound line (such as to Glendale). And no new mezzanine would be needed. (Could also go under Figueroa in the same way.) |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 15, 2018 17:26:26 GMT -8
If the downtown option (option G) goes to 7th street, that's a long walk from 8th street to Red/Purple on 7th. If it goes to Pershing Square, then we have another N/S downtown line and downtown really needs an E/W, instead. And it doesn't hit Blue/Gold until they extend it to Broadway/2nd. If it did that, that would be a good route. Why do you assume that an underground station 500 feet away from another underground station wouldn't have an underground in-system connection to it? I really can't imagine that not happening. I wasn't assuming there wouldn't be an underground walkway, I'm saying that it's a bit of a walk (even if underground). Wilshire Blvd is about 1/2 that distance away from 7th St, so it would be a quicker transfer, unless Metro shells out for a moving walkway. OTOH, an 8th-7th walkway should allow for an underground entrance to Fig at 7th if it's under Fig. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 15, 2018 18:11:22 GMT -8
If the downtown option (option G) goes to 7th street, that's a long walk from 8th street to Red/Purple on 7th. That is the current plan: head west under 8th Street, and terminate at 8th/Flower, with a mezzanine connection to 7th/Metro Center. What about Wilshire, instead? A short walk to 7th. The bores are going to be deep, anyways, to go under Blue/Gold. They could look at boring deep under the Walgreen's (617 7th) and 626 Wilshire to get to Wilshire. To allow for elevation change, put the station more towards Fig. Also put the cross-station walkway under Fig rather than Flower (as Blue/Gold is already under the street there). The Lebanon St (alley) might be available, too - depends on building foundations. I love the idea of putting the station at Wilshire/Flower or 6th/Flower (in fact I advocated that elsewhere). It would bring people very close to the Library, City National Plaza, etc. I also like the other idea, of taking 8th Street west but then curving the line north under Hope Street, with a stop at 7th/Hope. The tracks would be at the same level as the existing Blue/Expo tracks, and parallel to them. This would allow for a future northwest-bound line (such as to Glendale). And no new mezzanine would be needed. (Could also go under Figueroa in the same way.)
If the tracks are under 8th, it could be possible to do Hope. There's a couple of caveats - the Red/Purple is deep at Hope as it goes under Blue/Gold a short block away. If you go above Red/Purple, then take into account one of Mitsui's new highrises at the NE corner of 8th/Hope (754 S Hope - the property goes from Hope all the way to Grand) - this would get in the way of a shallow higher-speed turn. Could stay shallow, and turn with a sharp 90 under 8th/Hope ... maybe doable... slow. Could also take a wider turn deeper underground starting somewhere south of 8th, possibly 9th St, before turning towards Hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 15, 2018 18:25:27 GMT -8
Metro's own analysis shows most WASB riders will end up in west part of downtown or areas west of downtown (lots of SE LA County to West LA/Santa Monica commutes). So actually option G is the best. Option E gets WASB riders to Union Station a 1/4 mile in front of Union Station where these riders will then have to walk about 10 minutes to reach Red/Purple to transfer to their intended destinations. It's only "best" if you completely ignore the transfer quality.
I was looking at thesource's map, and it looked like it hasn't been determined if option E would end at Alameda or underneath the existing tracks - it shows both destinations. If it ends on Alameda, a big thumbs down, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 16, 2018 9:34:10 GMT -8
I was looking at thesource's map, and it looked like it hasn't been determined if option E would end at Alameda or underneath the existing tracks - it shows both destinations. If it ends on Alameda, a big thumbs down, of course.
Yeah, Option E is actually two suboptions, like you described. The idea of putting Option E under Alameda was to keep the entire thing underground and avoid another disruption to Little Tokyo. Plus, one could argue it would make the line more useful for accessing the Olvera Street/South Chinatown area (at the expense of connectivity at Union Station). I'm not in favor of this: just saying what they were thinking. If they really wanted to solve everything, they would relocate all train platforms (Amtrak, Metrolink, Gold Line) to a new underground station in front of LAUS. This would improve both transfers and access from outside. But this would cost billions of dollars and would only happen if Union Station were to fall into a sinkhole or something. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 21, 2018 9:06:06 GMT -8
My biggest objection to this project is that Metro is considering building a new subway through what is actually an extremely low-density area (the produce district), strictly for the purpose of speed. All of the options suffer from this problem, including the underground options to Union Station. It just seems wasteful.
Really, what they ought to do is widen and fully grade-separate the Blue Line into Downtown L.A., and have the WSAB Line follow the same route. The cost/benefit equation would be much better doing this, for existing and new riders alike.
They should create a four-track route, elevated all along Washington Blvd, from Washington Station to Grand Station, with a new station above Grand Avenue. Then the four tracks should move to the north side of Washington, plunging into a portal and cutting under the existing Flower Street tracks and then under the west side of Flower Street.
Heading north, there should be a series of crossovers, and underground station at Pico, and then a new tunnel leading into 7th/Metro, with two of the tracks terminating at that station, and the rest going through.
Four tracks would allow for express service, as well as redundancy (in case of LRV issues).
I think this is the best solution because it accomplishes all of the goals of the project (getting the new tracks downtown, and providing full connectivity), and additionally vastly improves the Blue Line by grade separating it into Downtown L.A. (The Expo Line could be included as well.) I would guess that even with all the grade separations, it would still be cheaper than building a subway all the way through the industrial district.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 21, 2018 11:30:09 GMT -8
Just so long as they don’t try to build the Santa Ana subway as dual bore I’m okay. It’s a waste of money and time to build all these deep bore subways but not go for the single bore Barcelona/San Jose option.
Not to mention the deep dual bore method metro prefers is needlessly brutal to residents in the vicinity of the station as every dual bore station palace each takes a decade to build, which means a decade of miserable impacts, versus the relatively minor impacts (similar to a skyscraper construction) of single bore construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 21, 2018 19:39:36 GMT -8
My biggest objection to this project is that Metro is considering building a new subway through what is actually an extremely low-density area (the produce district), strictly for the purpose of speed. All of the options suffer from this problem, including the underground options to Union Station. It just seems wasteful. Really, what they ought to do is widen and fully grade-separate the Blue Line into Downtown L.A., and have the WSAB Line follow the same route. The cost/benefit equation would be much better doing this, for existing and new riders alike. They should create a four-track route, elevated all along Washington Blvd, from Washington Station to Grand Station, with a new station above Grand Avenue. Then the four tracks should move to the north side of Washington, plunging into a portal and cutting under the existing Flower Street tracks and then under the west side of Flower Street. Heading north, there should be a series of crossovers, and underground station at Pico, and then a new tunnel leading into 7th/Metro, with two of the tracks terminating at that station, and the rest going through. Four tracks would allow for express service, as well as redundancy (in case of LRV issues). I think this is the best solution because it accomplishes all of the goals of the project (getting the new tracks downtown, and providing full connectivity), and additionally vastly improves the Blue Line by grade separating it into Downtown L.A. (The Expo Line could be included as well.) I would guess that even with all the grade separations, it would still be cheaper than building a subway all the way through the industrial district. I couldn’t disagree more. We already have a blue line route and adding an additional route is immensely more useful. That said I agree (and so does metro) that the blue/expo lines need to be grade separated along flower. Also, the produce district will be all housing soon enough. We are building transit for the future, not just for the right now. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 22, 2018 8:52:20 GMT -8
^ Just my contrary opinion, trying to think outside the box.
I am all about serving new corridors, and I love the idea of a new subway serving different parts of downtown. But, I do think any new corridors should be rail-ready, not rail-maybeinthefuture. I think this is a fundamental problem with how we plan rail in L.A.: with our limited resources, we're going to build a line to low-density Whittier, while Vermont Blvd south of Wilshire, the 2nd busiest bus corridor in the county (after Wilshire), gets no rail at all.
I also don't believe that the Blue Line on Washington and Flower will be getting grade-separation or track redundancy any time soon, without piggybacking on a line like this. In the NYC subway (in no way a perfect system), they built their lines through Manhattan from the very beginning to be grade-separated with 3 or more tracks. And that has served them very well. Meanwhile, we're contemplating billions for a new subway to the produce district, when a beefed-up Washington-Flower corridor could get the WSAB to Downtown, and get there far cheaper, and with improved service for the Blue Line as a huge side benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 22, 2018 9:37:30 GMT -8
There is no sense to add another line into the regional connector... it will be an operational nightmare.
WASB doesn't really need to go to Union Station, and it doesn't need to share tracks with Blue/Expo in Downtown LA.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 22, 2018 14:03:12 GMT -8
^ Just my contrary opinion, trying to think outside the box. I am all about serving new corridors, and I love the idea of a new subway serving different parts of downtown. But, I do think any new corridors should be rail-ready, not rail-maybeinthefuture. I think this is a fundamental problem with how we plan rail in L.A.: with our limited resources, we're going to build a line to low-density Whittier, while Vermont Blvd south of Wilshire, the 2nd busiest bus corridor in the county (after Wilshire), gets no rail at all. I also don't believe that the Blue Line on Washington and Flower will be getting grade-separation or track redundancy any time soon, without piggybacking on a line like this. In the NYC subway (in no way a perfect system), they built their lines through Manhattan from the very beginning to be grade-separated with 3 or more tracks. And that has served them very well. Meanwhile, we're contemplating billions for a new subway to the produce district, when a beefed-up Washington-Flower corridor could get the WSAB to Downtown, and get there far cheaper, and with improved service for the Blue Line as a huge side benefit. Building a line to Whittier is more the problem of LA County and getting votes passed for Measure R and M. The outlying areas have much more voting power than they have use for rail and they insist on light rail even when commuter rail may be more cost effective or appropriate. The only hope is that the gas tax remains and that a disproportionate amount flows to projects like the Crenshaw and Vermont Lines. I liked Streetsblog LA's idea of having the subway continue from the Arts District Station mostly above ground (would have to be elevated or fenced off with the third rail). Metro didn't like the suggestion and dismissed it as too expensive. I'm not sure if it would have worked as I don't know the WASB ROW and area well enough, but this would have been a nice solution if economically feasible. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 22, 2018 16:10:48 GMT -8
There is no sense to add another line into the regional connector... it will be an operational nightmare. WASB doesn't really need to go to Union Station, and it doesn't need to share tracks with Blue/Expo in Downtown LA.
WSAB wouldn't need to share tracks: it would get a new set of tracks. All it would share with the Blue Line is the grade-separated ROW. Its tracks would follow the same route as the Blue Line, but would terminate at 7th/Metro.
Here is the track configuration, with each [] representing a platform:
W [] B B [] W
B tracks serve Blue and Expo Line trains.
W tracks serve WSAB trains.
The only time they would share tracks would be if a train broke down. Then a well-placed crossover would allow for passing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 22, 2018 17:30:15 GMT -8
... they insist on light rail even when commuter rail may be more cost effective or appropriate. Can you blame them considering how high Metrolink prices are, and how seldom the frequencies are? Since both of those are controlled by Metrolink's inter-county board, perhaps LA County would be better off running a commuter rail service on its own. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 22, 2018 19:33:43 GMT -8
... they insist on light rail even when commuter rail may be more cost effective or appropriate. Can you blame them considering how high Metrolink prices are, and how seldom the frequencies are? Since both of those are controlled by Metrolink's inter-county board, perhaps LA County would be better off running a commuter rail service on its own. Metro is the major funder of Metrolink. Eventually Metro is not going to be able to afford to run $1.75 light rail lines out 20-25 miles where everyone is riding one direction while train cars going the opposite direction are almost completely empty. The chickens will come home to roost soon. Metro is going to have to make some brutal decisions in the next few years. Cut inner city bus service while funding suburban light rail operations, raise fares on everyone, or institute some sort of distanced based fare system. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 22, 2018 20:34:37 GMT -8
Can you blame them considering how high Metrolink prices are, and how seldom the frequencies are? Since both of those are controlled by Metrolink's inter-county board, perhaps LA County would be better off running a commuter rail service on its own. Metro is the major funder of Metrolink. Eventually Metro is not going to be able to afford to run $1.75 light rail lines out 20-25 miles where everyone is riding one direction while train cars going the opposite direction are almost completely empty. The chickens will come home to roost soon. Metro is going to have to make some brutal decisions in the next few years. Cut inner city bus service while funding suburban light rail operations, raise fares on everyone, or institute some sort of distanced based fare system.
Let's not transpose the bus problem over to light rail. Metro's bus ridership is down big time. This isn't due to running light rail to Azusa. Bus service is going to be cut because people aren't riding Metro buses enough.
|
|
