|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 2, 2011 9:43:16 GMT -8
Great... another turf war related forced transfer
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 2, 2011 12:57:40 GMT -8
well, in the streetcar's defense, it would have the same advantages that the downtown Los Angeles streetcar would have — hop-on, hop-off ability, lots of possible station stops without a station platform, low-floor boarding, a low profile (because of the lack of station infrastructure) but still more noticeable and more permanent than a shuttle bus.
also, I don't think that the streetcar was originally designed with the transfer specifically in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by smar on Dec 9, 2011 19:33:20 GMT -8
This thread seems to be a bit quiet, and naturally so. But I have noticed some work going on directly on this ROW in Cerritos/Norwalk, on the eastern side of Studebaker. I noticed it a couple of weeks ago, but can't make out what's going on. About a dozen guys all on the ROW w/ equipment.
Any one know what's going on there?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 21, 2012 11:21:56 GMT -8
Alternative Analysis (precursor to DEIR): www.pacificelectriccorridor.com/project-documentsPreliminary alignment options for the norther portion (page 2-25): East Bank Alternative – This alignment alternative would operate north along the San Pedro Subdivision to travel over a Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) at-grade crossing and a corner of BNSF’s Hobart Intermodal Yard to where the ROW intersects with the Union Pacific (UP)- owned ROW used for freight, Metrolink, and Amtrak operations. It would share the UP ROW for a short distance to where the ROW, now owned by Metro and operated by Metrolink, turns north to run along the east bank of the Los Angeles River, and cross the river into Union Station. West Bank 1 – Under this alignment alternative, the connection to Union Station would operate in its own ROW along the west bank of the Los Angeles River to just beyond the Redondo Junction where it would share the Metro-owned and Metrolink-operated ROW with Metrolink and Amtrak service. West Bank 2 – This alignment alternative would turn west to operate in the median of Randolph Street, formerly a BNSF railroad ROW now owned by UP, through Huntington Park and then turn north to operate in the median of Pacific Boulevard, a former street car ROW until it intersects with the Metro-owned Harbor Subdivision. It would follow the Harbor Subdivision ROW in a bridge over the Redondo Junction, and then operate north along the west bank similar to West Bank option 1 to reach Union Station. West Bank 3 – This alternative follows the same alignment as West Bank 2, but rather than turning to operate along the west bank of the Los Angeles River, it continues north along the Harbor Subdivision, and then under city streets and private property in a combination of aerial and underground configurations to daylight south of Metro Gold Line Eastside Little Tokyo Station where it utilizes the existing at-grade Metro Gold Line tracks to reach Union Station. WB3 is the start of "2nd Downtown Connector" option that some people here have talked about for many years. It goes up to Union Station via Alameda. I will add that if WB3 is the preferred route out of EIR process (and it happens soon enough), we may be able to preserve the current street level Gold line Little Tokyo station for this line (the Gold/Expo and Blue line will use the new underground station). |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 21, 2012 11:28:24 GMT -8
WB3 is definitely the best option.
It's another reason why I hope Metro will not dismantle the at-grade Little Tokyo station (as it has been proposed).
Also, as I have stated elsewhere, I think this line should connect with the future Burbank/Glendale light-rail line, providing a complete transit alternative to the 5 freeway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 21, 2012 11:35:00 GMT -8
Preliminary alignment option for southern portion (page 2-27):
Harbor Boulevard/1st Street/SARTC – After leaving the Harbor Boulevard Station located on the
former PE ROW, this option travels south on Harbor Boulevard, turns east on 1st Street, and then
runs north on a realigned Santiago Street to a terminus at the SARTC where passengers would
transfer to Street Car, Metrolink, and Amtrak services, and OCTA and international bus services.
Westminster Boulevard/17th Street/Main Street – After the Harbor Boulevard Station, this
alignment would travel east on Westminster Boulevard/17th Street, south on Main Street, where
the route would turn south to interface with the future Street Car Main Street Station. Street Car
and LRT passengers would transfer to the Santa Ana Street Car system to reach the SARTC.
Santa Ana argued (and won) against using the PEROW all the way to Santa Ana Metrolink station. The 2 options on the table all involve torturous street running and tight turns. The Westminster option doesn't even connect to the Metrolink/CAHSR station.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 21, 2012 11:42:45 GMT -8
Well, both options are awful, but if it's one or the other, then the Harbor/1st/SARTC option is the right choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 23, 2012 19:26:27 GMT -8
Santa Ana argued (and won) against using the PEROW all the way to Santa Ana Metrolink station. The 2 options on the table all involve torturous street running and tight turns. The Westminster option doesn't even connect to the Metrolink/CAHSR station. If the Center Line project had come into existence, OC would have something to use as a guide for 'what to do/what NOT to do' on this, other inter-county projects, and intra-OC projects. That being said, my biggest wish is that LRT is picked as the preferred technology. The route...we'll get to that. So long as it's not Mag-Lev! |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 24, 2012 0:41:43 GMT -8
Maglev will never happen. It's just too expensive. That won't stop them from wasting a lot of money studying it, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 24, 2012 1:48:07 GMT -8
Actually, I want to see this line built as a heavy-rail extension of the Red/Purple lines, but this time going all-elevated, open cut below-grade or at-grade (wherever appropriate), a la BART in the Bay Area suburbs. If they're projecting 80,000 riders for this thing, they might as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 24, 2012 15:58:39 GMT -8
80K daily riders? So this would be, more or less, matched up with Blue Line ridership. And like the Blue Line it would seemingly pay for itself and generate some needed income.
My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. What happens when L.A., Huntington Park, Southgate, Paramount, La Palma, Cypress, Garden Grove, etc. all vote in favor of LRT (or HRT)? Are they going to be good sports about it and go with everyone else or back out and kill it?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 24, 2012 16:25:43 GMT -8
80K daily riders? So this would be, more or less, matched up with Blue Line ridership. And like the Blue Line it would seemingly pay for itself and generate some needed income. My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. What happens when L.A., Huntington Park, Southgate, Paramount, La Palma, Cypress, Garden Grove, etc. all vote in favor of LRT (or HRT)? Are they going to be good sports about it and go with everyone else or back out and kill it? Unfortunately, even the Blue Line does not pay for itself or even really come close. Our farebox recovery is at 28% and while that is brought down by some bus routes, it isn't all that much higher for the rail lines. This is going to be a major problem going forward as we add more lines, because we'll need additional subsidies to operate them with such a low farebox recovery. I do agree we need well used lines as that minimizes the problem somewhat. However, they still need subsidies and ultimately our fares are going to have to rise. There has been a lot of talk of distance based fares on the Source and with the Connector they will certainly be necessary, but I believe the fares will have to rise to improve the farebox recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 24, 2012 17:23:49 GMT -8
My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. Where did you hear this, and who is speaking on behalf of those cities? One of my friends is a councilmember of one of those cities. I haven't yet asked their thoughts on this line yet, but I can find out. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 24, 2012 19:34:41 GMT -8
Elson: the RoadTrainer posted that information a while back. However, I went to the meeting today in Southgate about the PEROW/WSAB. I asked about that. The person I was speaking to did not directly say it, but I was lead to believe that the Mayor of Cerritos has a boner for Mag-Lev...and so do some powerful politicians. I didn't find out who, however, it's the reason Low Speed Mag-Lev is included as one of the six (6) technology alternatives. I was made to understand that there was a slight difference between High Speed and Low Speed Mag-Lev. I didn't see HRT, as a technology, listed in the materials they gave out, so I think it's no longer being considered (sorry Elson.)
LAC/Metro and OC/OCTA own the ROW respectively. The Orange Line project people are still pushing for Mag-Lev, but I was told LAC/OC have no interest in allowing them to construct anything on the ROW. Some cities along the ROW are in the middle of developing plans for TOD's. West Bank 3 is perceived as the best performing alternative. Cypress and La Palma want nothing to do with the project, so it's no mistake that there is no station in that area. The benefit of connecting the WSAB line to SARTC, using Harbor Bl./1st St., was definitely played up. There is already about $240(?) million from Measure R set aside for it. It's going to cost $3.0-$3.2 billion and the route is 30 miles long!
An older gentleman, I think it was the Mayor of Huntington Park, voiced his desire to run U.S. made LRV's and that the LRV's contain U.S. engineered electrical components and that their maintenance be conducted by Americans. Another older gentleman voiced his concern over the loudness of the LRVs' bells and whistles. He also noted that there was a stench from dead animals at the Blue Line Slauson Station.
This was my first time at one of these types of meetings. I probably didn't ask the right questions, but I'm still glad I went.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 24, 2012 19:40:14 GMT -8
Oops, almost forgot! The Green Line Station of the PEROW/WSAB is a line to line transfer station...who knew?
|
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on May 25, 2012 5:55:08 GMT -8
Oops, almost forgot! The Green Line Station of the PEROW/WSAB is a line to line transfer station...who knew? Long Beach Blvd station? That is the only station where the 105 freeway (and the Green Line) sits directly on the old PE ROW. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 25, 2012 8:23:57 GMT -8
80K daily riders? So this would be, more or less, matched up with Blue Line ridership. And like the Blue Line it would seemingly pay for itself and generate some needed income. My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. What happens when L.A., Huntington Park, Southgate, Paramount, La Palma, Cypress, Garden Grove, etc. all vote in favor of LRT (or HRT)? Are they going to be good sports about it and go with everyone else or back out and kill it? Simple Bellflower and Cerritos can pay for the cost of elevating the stations and the track through their communities. Actually, I want to see this line built as a heavy-rail extension of the Red/Purple lines, but this time going all-elevated, open cut below-grade or at-grade (wherever appropriate), a la BART in the Bay Area suburbs. If they're projecting 80,000 riders for this thing, they might as well. That's 80K for a 35-37 mile line route - Not cost effective for a HRT but decent for a LRT. If it ran from Downtown to County Line ridership would be close to 40K, if it ran from Green Line to Santa Ana ridership would be close to 40K. LRT is a good fit. However I wonder if it is possible to build an infill junction to enable current Green Line trains to branch off and serve the West Santa Ana ROW to the County Line or to an area of OC that's supportive of the line |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 25, 2012 9:35:34 GMT -8
How to connect within Orange County to Disneyland -- which is a MAJOR employer will be an interesting study.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 25, 2012 9:45:17 GMT -8
How to connect within Orange County to Disneyland -- which is a MAJOR employer will be an interesting study. Longer term, I think that three projects would form the basis of improved LA/OC connections: - This project
- Green Line to Metrolink (a lot cheaper to hook OC into LA Metro rail than this project would be)
- An East-West route that connects the future ARTIC station to Disney and the Santa Ana Branch line (with eventual connections further West to Long Beach and on to the South Bay extension of the Green line).
With these three connections in place, OC can fill in their transit network (or not) and there will be sufficient core connections between the two systems. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 25, 2012 13:47:19 GMT -8
Thank you Masonite for the information. I looked at NYC's Subway fare system and it looks like a mish-mash of prices and distance steps. I know there's logic to it, but it's just so much! Do you know whether their system stays afloat with or without subsidies? We have a bargain single ride fare at $1.50 vs. NYC at $2.50. New Jersey's transit system has a different fare structure for each of it's light rail lines while Washington DC has a fare structure based on peak periods.
It's too bad. I thought the Blue Line, in the least, generated enough income to sustain itself. I wonder if raising the base fare an extra $0.50 would make a difference; and even if it did, would it necessarily send people back to their smog-producing clunkers? It would rile the Bus Rider's Union for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 25, 2012 14:05:15 GMT -8
Thank you Masonite for the information. I looked at NYC's Subway fare system and it looks like a mish-mash of prices and distance steps. I know there's logic to it, but it's just so much! Do you know whether their system stays afloat with or without subsidies? We have a bargain single ride fare at $1.50 vs. NYC at $2.50. New Jersey's transit system has a different fare structure for each of it's light rail lines while Washington DC has a fare structure based on peak periods. It's too bad. I thought the Blue Line, in the least, generated enough income to sustain itself. I wonder if raising the base fare an extra $0.50 would make a difference; and even if it did, would it necessarily send people back to their smog-producing clunkers? It would rile the Bus Rider's Union for sure. Take a look at this. These are raw figures. I think if you delve into the MTA budget you can get some more info on the rail vs. bus recovery. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratioLooking at this, people assume distance based fares are the answer, but from my experience distance based fares may have higher recovery just because of higher fares for longer distances. DC and SF have higher base fares and use even higher fares for longer distances. Yes, $1.50 is a bargain compared to other systems in the US, especially for longer rides. I do think we'll have to go with a distance based system with the connector, although not sure how that would really work with the bus system. A day pass at $5 or soon to be $6 to go anywhere in LA County is real bargain. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 25, 2012 14:21:29 GMT -8
In looking at the budget, the real problem is light rail. It has an expected recovery ratio of less than 20%, while heavy rail is the star at 37%. People don't take this into account when factoring in costs as they just look at construction costs and not operating costs, which add up quickly because they are every year.
Of course, heavy rail only should be utilized in dense corridors with high ridership. I do expect the Westside Extension to have very high ridership though. I think the Santa Ana Row should be light rail.
Even though I think our light rail is pretty well utilized right now, it is a bit surprising to see such low figures here. Running all those different lines with 3 car train maximums is just not that efficient compared to heavy rail. Even so, just half the recovery ratio seems almost shocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 25, 2012 14:31:22 GMT -8
TransitFan, what I was trying to express, in my excitable haste, is that the Green Line is getting an infill station under the WSAB tracks and that the WSAB was getting a station over the Green Line to allow transfers from one line to the other. I asked if there was going to be passenger access into the surrounding community with walk-ways, but the person I spoke to mentioned it would be strictly a line to line transfer station. By this time I was talking to two (2) of the people from the PEROW/WSAB and they both mentioned that patrons would be able to park at the Green Line Lakewood Station Park N Ride and then transfer to the WSAB at the infill station. That made sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 25, 2012 19:34:30 GMT -8
Where will the in-fill station be on the Green Line? Atlantic?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 25, 2012 23:09:07 GMT -8
Where will the in-fill station be on the Green Line? Atlantic? I keep forgetting that this line is actually composed to two (2) ROW's: The San Pedro Subdivision and the WSAB. The station is going to be under San Pedro Subdivision portion of the line. It falls between Garfield Av. and Lakewood Bl. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 26, 2012 1:37:05 GMT -8
Where will the in-fill station be on the Green Line? Atlantic? I keep forgetting that this line is actually composed to two (2) ROW's: The San Pedro Subdivision and the WSAB. The station is going to be under San Pedro Subdivision portion of the line. It falls between Garfield Av. and Lakewood Bl. I guess this is the location: maps.google.com/?ll=33.910831,-118.165555&spn=0.010542,0.01929&t=h&z=16 I know freeway medians are pretty hostile environments, but it seems like there could be some kind of street access from a station. Maybe it couldn't be done on the cheap, though, because of the ADA. Given the track configuration around there, I wonder if they would even be able to put in a non-revenue connector. Maybe along the WSAB to where it meets the 105, but how would it cross the freeway to meet the green line? |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 26, 2012 1:44:46 GMT -8
In looking at the budget, the real problem is light rail. It has an expected recovery ratio of less than 20%, while heavy rail is the star at 37%. People don't take this into account when factoring in costs as they just look at construction costs and not operating costs, which add up quickly because they are every year. Of course, heavy rail only should be utilized in dense corridors with high ridership. I do expect the Westside Extension to have very high ridership though. I think the Santa Ana Row should be light rail. Even though I think our light rail is pretty well utilized right now, it is a bit surprising to see such low figures here. Running all those different lines with 3 car train maximums is just not that efficient compared to heavy rail. Even so, just half the recovery ratio seems almost shocking. Selectively choosing to use heavy rail in dense corridors may make your predictions about different recovery ratios self fulfilling. It should be possible to emulate the performance of heavy rail regardless of whether you're using a pantograph or a third rail. Platform length to enable longer trains, and full grade separation to simplify operations and prevent delays would be the key to making light rail technology deliver heavy rail performance. Lower ridership per mile on existing light rail routes should be viewed as inherent in the current level of development in the city. Well chosen routes that maximize development potential along the line, along with upzoning around stations will help these lines reach their full potential. The network effect will also help to increase ridership across the whole system as new lines get built. I'm cautiously optimistic about longer term ridership potential and improving recovery ratios. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 26, 2012 9:48:55 GMT -8
MatthewB: I asked specifically if there would be access into the surrounding neighborhood and one of the representatives I spoke with said no because it would encourage parking in the neighborhood. They promoted parking at the Green Line Lakewood Station to ride from there to the "Santa Ana Line" infill station and board there.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 26, 2012 14:27:43 GMT -8
MatthewB: I asked specifically if there would be access into the surrounding neighborhood and one of the representatives I spoke with said no because it would encourage parking in the neighborhood. They promoted parking at the Green Line Lakewood Station to ride from there to the "Santa Ana Line" infill station and board there. I was just thinking a simple set of stairs so that a few locals could benefit and not have to get to the next station down the line to ride if there's a station right by their house. Yet another way cars screw up life in Los Angeles. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 29, 2012 11:23:30 GMT -8
MatthewB: I asked specifically if there would be access into the surrounding neighborhood and one of the representatives I spoke with said no because it would encourage parking in the neighborhood. They promoted parking at the Green Line Lakewood Station to ride from there to the "Santa Ana Line" infill station and board there. I was just thinking a simple set of stairs so that a few locals could benefit and not have to get to the next station down the line to ride if there's a station right by their house. Yet another way cars screw up life in Los Angeles. I can see where that makes sense, but, there are going to be stations on Paramount/Rosecrans and Gardendale so the area will still be well served. Gardendale Station to Green/Santa Ana Station is about 3/4 of a mile as is Green/Santa Ana Station to Paramount/Rosecrans Station. |
|
