|
|
Post by matthewb on May 29, 2012 16:38:40 GMT -8
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. 3/4 of a mile to walk... not very convenient. Still, not so many people in the immediate vicinity of the station. I still don't buy the "parking" nonsense as a reason not to have a set of stairs to enable pedestrians to access the station without having to divert 3/4 of a mile out of their way. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 29, 2012 19:30:27 GMT -8
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. 3/4 of a mile to walk... not very convenient. Still, not so many people in the immediate vicinity of the station. I still don't buy the "parking" nonsense as a reason not to have a set of stairs to enable pedestrians to access the station without having to divert 3/4 of a mile out of their way. If Metro is true to form, a lot will happen from the time they receive the study and the time the FEIR/S is completed and released. For example: one of the two (2) stations could fall off in exchange for a walkway. Both stations could fall off in favor of two walkways, one from each side of the freeway. The Green/Santa Ana transfer station could fall off and both Gardendale and Rosecrans/Imperial Stations each get Park N Ride lots. All three (3) of these stations could fall off in favor of stations on Lakewood/Somerset, Garfield/Imperial, or Downey Av. A station, bus terminal, and Park N Ride plaza could be built over the I-105 like the one proposed over the 101 frwy from Alameda and Spring(?). |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Sept 16, 2012 18:28:16 GMT -8
I like this project. I hope it happens, even if it does not punch through the OC-LA County border. I also think it's interesting how it would tie in with the new Metro Rail network after the Regional Connector.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 20, 2012 8:43:35 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. they already have parking issues around the Lakewood greenline station in the residential areas surrounding the station. locals got fed up and the city implemented parking time limits in the surrounding area. unless you had a sticker. I got dinged with a ticket back in 08. i even came and complained on this board about how anti transit the city was.lol I'm sure the same thing could be implemented in that neighborhood.where the new station would go they could have parking limits through the day unless you have a tag on your car. Make the fine high enough and people will not park there. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 20, 2012 22:08:15 GMT -8
Interesting! So parking at the Green Line, Lakewood Station gets packed? That's 545 spaces! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that once the Santa Ana Line opens either parking at Lakewood Station will have to be doubled to accommodate the new ridership or parking will be needed at either Gardendale or Paramount/Rosecrans where the stations are planned.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 2, 2012 19:07:29 GMT -8
www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21647568/roger-rudick-and-dennis-lytton-metro-needs-getMetro needs to get its rail plan rightBy Roger Rudick and Dennis Lytton In 1869, the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads met in Utah. They hammered in the Golden Spike, completing the transcontinental railroad. Now, imagine how foolish they would have looked if the tracks and trains of the two railroads were incompatible. This is the scenario that Los Angeles County could face in a few years as it builds out its transit system. In 2008, county voters approved Measure R, a half-cent sales tax. It enables the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or Metro, to build a network of lines. One of these lines, the Pacific Electric West Santa Ana Branch, will run on an abandoned right of way through Orange County, continuing north towards Union Station. A separate project, and the centerpiece of Measure R, will extend the Purple Line subway under Wilshire Boulevard all the way to Westwood and, eventually, to the sea. The Purple Line includes a short surface extension on the opposite end -- Metro will add an Arts District station at the subway storage yard on the L.A. river, south of Union Station.
That means the West Santa Ana Branch Line will run into the L.A. subway's eastern terminus at the bank of the river. But, unless changes are made, it will be impossible to join the two lines. Why? In the legally required Alternatives Analysis for the West Santa Ana Branch, Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments are studying modes that are completely incompatible with the subway and will therefore require billions in redundant infrastructure to reach Union Station, where riders will be forced to transfer. The West Santa Ana Branch consultants insist their line can't link up because subway trains collect electricity from a third-rail and their project, because it runs on the surface, must use overhead wire for power. This is bunk. There are many third-rail powered surface lines around the world with nearly identical characteristics. The Long Island Railroad, the nation's biggest commuter rail system, is just one example. Moreover, there are off-the-shelf "dual mode" trains that can run on third rail or overhead wire. But the study ignores such obvious solutions. This is a symptom of a problem with rail planning in Southern California that dates back to the collapse of the Hollywood subway in 1995. Metro has managers and architects on staff who know how to design bus lines. A few have worked on light rail in small cities. But now the agency is trying to build mass transit on par with London, Paris or New York. So they get hoodwinked by consultants who can't afford to admit when they don't know what they're talking about. Designs for other Measure R projects show similar failures to understand basic rail technology. And the timing couldn't be worse: New rules, coming into effect over the next few years from the Federal Railroad Administration, will give Metro more flexibility than ever to build a coherent, integrated system that blurs the differences between light rail, subways, commuter trains, and even high speed rail. But the advantages of the new regulations will be lost if Metro doesn't have the technological expertise to exploit them. Soon, voters will be asked to extend that Measure R tax. And they should; by borrowing against it, Los Angeles can build rail lines faster than ever dreamed possible. But first Metro has to fill its ranks with qualified engineers and planners. Metrolink, its sister agency that runs Southern California's commuter rail system, recently took a step in the right direction by hiring Michael DePallo, general manager of New York and New Jersey's PATH subway, to be its CEO. Now Metro, which runs L.A.'s subway and light rail, needs to embark on an extensive head-hunting mission to London, New York, Paris, Tokyo and other cities. That's the only way it will successfully build the world-class transit system this region so desperately needs. Roger Rudick is a Los Angeles-based journalist and transportation expert. Dennis Lytton is on the council of the National Association of Railroad Passengers and is the vice president and spokesman of Californians for High Speed Rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 2, 2012 19:20:11 GMT -8
This is the silliest piece of writing I ever read. Have these guys look at the ridership numbers on this line? The full 30+ mile corridor would have 87K riders, @ close to 3000 riders/mile, no where close to the ridership needed for a heavy rail line like we have now at 8000 riders/mile, even if it went to meet up with the Green Line ridership would be a mere 40,000, if it connected with the Wilshire Subway that's maybe 5-6K additional riders at more than twice the cost of a nearly mostly all right-of-way high speed LRT line. If these guys thought outside the box, they'd realized that by making this Light rail and having this line link up to the existing Gold Line platform at Union Station and continuing that into the Measure R funded and Measure J accelerated Regional Connector would do at least two things; - Provide more linkages to the rest of the Metro rail network
- Balance out the heavier ridership lines of Expo and Blue with the slightly lower ridership Gold Lines
- More flexible interoperability between either the Expo, Blue or Gold Lines.
Solving many of the so-called problems they illustrate but come with the wrong solution with. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 2, 2012 19:39:33 GMT -8
This is the silliest piece of writing I ever read. Have these guys look at the ridership numbers on this line? The full 30+ mile corridor would have 87K riders, @ close to 3000 riders/mile, no where close to the ridership needed for a heavy rail line like we have now at 8000 riders/mile, even if it went to meet up with the Green Line ridership would be a mere 40,000, if it connected with the Wilshire Subway that's maybe 5-6K additional riders at more than twice the cost of a nearly mostly all right-of-way high speed LRT line. If these guys thought outside the box, they'd realized that by making this Light rail and having this line link up to the existing Gold Line platform at Union Station and continuing that into the Measure R funded and Measure J accelerated Regional Connector would do at least two things; - Provide more linkages to the rest of the Metro rail network
- Balance out the heavier ridership lines of Expo and Blue with the slightly lower ridership Gold Lines
- More flexible interoperability between either the Expo, Blue or Gold Lines.
Solving many of the so-called problems they illustrate but come with the wrong solution with. I've thought about the regional connector as well, but ai doubt there is any capacity for this line to use the connector. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 2, 2012 19:47:47 GMT -8
This is the silliest piece of writing I ever read. Have these guys look at the ridership numbers on this line? The full 30+ mile corridor would have 87K riders, @ close to 3000 riders/mile, no where close to the ridership needed for a heavy rail line like we have now at 8000 riders/mile, even if it went to meet up with the Green Line ridership would be a mere 40,000, if it connected with the Wilshire Subway that's maybe 5-6K additional riders at more than twice the cost of a nearly mostly all right-of-way high speed LRT line. If these guys thought outside the box, they'd realized that by making this Light rail and having this line link up to the existing Gold Line platform at Union Station and continuing that into the Measure R funded and Measure J accelerated Regional Connector would do at least two things; - Provide more linkages to the rest of the Metro rail network
- Balance out the heavier ridership lines of Expo and Blue with the slightly lower ridership Gold Lines
- More flexible interoperability between either the Expo, Blue or Gold Lines.
Solving many of the so-called problems they illustrate but come with the wrong solution with. I've thought about the regional connector as well, but Ii doubt there is any capacity for this line to use the connector. There is capacity when you get down to think about it. Based on ridership and demand, the lines to the South and West have much heavier ridership then the lines to the North and East so there's more likely a chance that the South and west lines will end just outside of Downtown such as Union Station. So there's the excess capacity in place right there to extend this line to run on the Santa Ana branch. You really don't need to have every line run on the 6 minute headway because the train consist will dictate a more precise operating procedure. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 2, 2012 21:16:12 GMT -8
I've thought about the regional connector as well, but Ii doubt there is any capacity for this line to use the connector. There is capacity when you get down to think about it. Based on ridership and demand, the lines to the South and West have much heavier ridership then the lines to the North and East so there's more likely a chance that the South and west lines will end just outside of Downtown such as Union Station. So there's the excess capacity in place right there to extend this line to run on the Santa Ana branch. You really don't need to have every line run on the 6 minute headway because the train consist will dictate a more precise operating procedure. So I think what you're saying is, you expect that every other Blue Line train and Gold Line train will turn into a Santa Ana Branch train? Getting you headways that look like this: (Based on 2.5min headway in connector) 5min: Long Beach - Union Station 10min: Long Beach - Azusa 5min: Santa Monica - Union Station 10min: Santa Monica - East L.A. 5min: Union Station - Santa Ana Now, because the services will be scheduled on timing properly with the connector, this would theoretically be feasible, however this assumes that the running time to Santa Ana isn't an issue. With that said though, there are some significant operational issues with interlining like this, because of the length of the Blue Line you really wouldn't want to connect it to anything else, you want the flexibility to send a train that was supposed to be short-lined to Azusa if something happens south of Downtown L.A. (and it will). In addition, the length of a Blue + Santa Ana or Gold + Santa Ana will create a similar situation to the very long Blue Line. Not to mention, for scheduling, the running time addition may create difficulty in returning the train back to the connector to end up back on the same line. I know that sounds silly, but it does happen. There's a real limit to how long we can make these lines and expect them to operate well, and doing something like this will likely exceed that limit without some serious upgrades to the Blue Line. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 2, 2012 23:32:48 GMT -8
Anyone who doesn't think electric railway cars can be powered from both third rail and overhead wire are welcome to visit Boston and observe the MBTA Blue Line, or(closer to home) visit the Western Railway Museum (near Fairfield CA) and check out the Key System Bridge Units, which used third rail on the Bay Bridge and trolley wire in Oakland and Berkeley.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 3, 2012 7:22:40 GMT -8
Anyone who doesn't think electric railway cars can be powered from both third rail and overhead wire are welcome to visit Boston and observe the MBTA Blue Line, or(closer to home) visit the Western Railway Museum (near Fairfield CA) and check out the Key System Bridge Units, which used third rail on the Bay Bridge and trolley wire in Oakland and Berkeley. I think there's a rail car size problem, but I'm unable to find the dimensions of the light rail vehicles, only the subway cars. Also, again there's a capacity issue here, the subway doesn't have enough capacity to support a third line because of the frequency that'll be needed on the Red & Purple lines. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 3, 2012 10:46:48 GMT -8
Connect the line to the Yellow Line, which is also planned to intersect with the regional connector.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 3, 2012 13:04:11 GMT -8
There is capacity when you get down to think about it. Based on ridership and demand, the lines to the South and West have much heavier ridership then the lines to the North and East so there's more likely a chance that the South and west lines will end just outside of Downtown such as Union Station. So there's the excess capacity in place right there to extend this line to run on the Santa Ana branch. You really don't need to have every line run on the 6 minute headway because the train consist will dictate a more precise operating procedure. So I think what you're saying is, you expect that every other Blue Line train and Gold Line train will turn into a Santa Ana Branch train? Getting you headways that look like this: (Based on 2.5min headway in connector) 5min: Long Beach - Union Station 10min: Long Beach - Azusa 5min: Santa Monica - Union Station 10min: Santa Monica - East L.A. 5min: Union Station - Santa Ana Now, because the services will be scheduled on timing properly with the connector, this would theoretically be feasible, however this assumes that the running time to Santa Ana isn't an issue. With that said though, there are some significant operational issues with interlining like this, because of the length of the Blue Line you really wouldn't want to connect it to anything else, you want the flexibility to send a train that was supposed to be short-lined to Azusa if something happens south of Downtown L.A. (and it will). In addition, the length of a Blue + Santa Ana or Gold + Santa Ana will create a similar situation to the very long Blue Line. Not to mention, for scheduling, the running time addition may create difficulty in returning the train back to the connector to end up back on the same line. I know that sounds silly, but it does happen. There's a real limit to how long we can make these lines and expect them to operate well, and doing something like this will likely exceed that limit without some serious upgrades to the Blue Line. Actually in my mind I would only connect this line with two possible lines Gold Line to SG Valley and the the Expo Line to the Westside. The Blue Line will tie into the Eastside Line because neither branch is as dependent on a connection to Union Station as Expo is. I'll prepare a map of this tonight to show what I mean. There's one thing that is overlooked with this Santa Ana branch here, that this line will be relatively parallel to the Blue Line from Downtown to the Green Line, guess what that means? We'd be relieving capacity off of the Blue Line in the busiest section of the line to run onto this line with a new release valve into Downtown. In addition, if we see what this West Santa Ana Branch is also parallel to in the Interstate system, that is the 710. If this runs to connect with the Gold Line service to Pasadena, that would be a welcome transit alternative to the 710 and need not have every trip go through the Regional Connector, thus already enhancing the network effect of the LRT system effectively creating the RER style network imagined in that editorial. Also what's neglected with the LRT/HRT questions is that what will be the MOS of this corridor? Will it be from Downtown to the Green Line? Will it be from the Green Line to the Orange County Line? I don't doubt that a heavy rail line can go from third rail to pantograph, that is not my argument, my argument is ridership for this corridor and network connectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 3, 2012 13:11:15 GMT -8
Anyone who doesn't think electric railway cars can be powered from both third rail and overhead wire are welcome to visit Boston and observe the MBTA Blue Line, or(closer to home) visit the Western Railway Museum (near Fairfield CA) and check out the Key System Bridge Units, which used third rail on the Bay Bridge and trolley wire in Oakland and Berkeley. I think there's a rail car size problem, but I'm unable to find the dimensions of the light rail vehicles, only the subway cars. Also, again there's a capacity issue here, the subway doesn't have enough capacity to support a third line because of the frequency that'll be needed on the Red & Purple lines. There may be a car size problem in the current tunnels for the Red-Purple because that will dictate how much room the pantograph has to work with inside the tunnel car and other approach clearances. But only some detailed engineering drawings can show for sure. Also we don't know if Metro were to retrofit the existing HRV's to be able to support the weight of the pantographs on the roofs. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 3, 2012 18:15:32 GMT -8
OMG, I've missed something...like the decision that determines which technology the project is going with and picking the bank option over the L.A. River. This is completely unrelated; and I don't understand why the writers would even touch upon it. But when did Metro make the decision to add a Purple/Red Line Arts District Station and why must the WSAB be accommodated there? Anyway, it's clear that once the technology and bank option are chosen, that will determine where the line will go. Not to rain on everyone's parade, but HRT is NOT a technology option found in the draft alt. anal. If I'm looking at an old draft, please let me know!
I'm predicting LRT will be the preferred technology and that the line will be routed using west bank option #3, putting the line on Alameda St. with a superfluous station on 1st/Alameda before it merges onto the Pasadena/Azusa/ONT Line tracks to Union Station. Maybe Metro will find a way to engineer the line so that it can use Little Tokyo Station, but this is something that should really be coordinated with the Connector. I'm sure this is in the realm of what the writers were trying to get at. Simply moving the west bank option #3 over onto Central Av. would do the trick. It could be called west bank option #3a.
I'm partial to the WSAB continuing north to Glendale/Burbank or even continuing west on Cesar Chavez/Sunset Bl., following the old Silver Line concept to the Red Line Vermont Station. Again, this is something Metro needs to coordinate. It's probably safe to say that we're no longer in our rail transit infancy, but rather in our rail transit [early] adolescence. Otherwise we wouldn't be having these exciting problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 3, 2012 20:54:16 GMT -8
Yeah coordination between multiple projects seems to be becoming a big problem these days. Case in point: the sepulveda pass bus and van nuys light rail projects. Hopefully at some point it will be brought up at major meetings at Metro.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 4, 2012 10:38:17 GMT -8
... I don't understand why the writers would even touch upon it. But when did Metro make the decision to add a Purple/Red Line Arts District Station and why must the WSAB be accommodated there?.... Short answer this "extension to Arts district" doesn't exist yet, there's no direct funding for it. Its wishful thinking on their part for the moment. Also there's naivete on their part for not acknowledging the procurement costs for this dual mode option as depending on how far this "extension" goes via West Santa Ana Branch will determine how many of these vehicles will have to be dual mode right away. If the North Hollywood or Westwood branch were to go along this corridor and how far this will go. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Oct 4, 2012 20:01:59 GMT -8
I mentioned previously that I am interested in how this project ties into the Metro rail network. Still am, and, I have obviously thought about it before.
I think if the Santa Ana Branch were a system comparible with the Red Line, that would be fantastic. Fast system that links with SE LA County and maybe Orange County. Those cars can run at ground level or elevated or in a tunnel. It doesn't matter as long as cars cannot cross the tracks, because that is where the 3rd rail is located. No, I doubt very very much that the current Red Line can fit new subway cars that have paragraphs on them. That thought is imaginative, if not fantasy.
Also, light rail vehicles cannot go on the Red Line tunnels because the sizes are not compatible. Pantograghs. Vehicle width. And maybe platform height are all different.
Another idea that I don't think works very well is to somehow connect the Sant Ana Branch with the Regional Connector and thereby having 3 lines run through downtown. That will not work if the tunnel only has 2 tracks. And some say 4 lines? Wow. That is way too complicated for passengers. And it would allow petiful service.
The Santa Ana Branch line needs to be in a separate tunnel, or, go to Union Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 4, 2012 20:55:37 GMT -8
This is really blowing my mind. What other lofty goals are these two (2) blithe writers going to set: dual Metrolink/Red Line service on one track along I-10 to County/USC, Cal State L.A., Mark Keppel High School, and El Monte Station?!! Geez!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 8, 2012 13:42:57 GMT -8
Another idea that I don't think works very well is to somehow connect the Sant Ana Branch with the Regional Connector and thereby having 3 lines run through downtown. That will not work if the tunnel only has 2 tracks. And some say 4 lines? Wow. That is way too complicated for passengers. And it would allow petiful service. The Santa Ana Branch line needs to be in a separate tunnel, or, go to Union Station. Short answer is that the line will have multiple destinations of lines connecting to it if West Santa Ana were to have one run that goes through the Regional Connector onto Expo Line on a 12 minute headway. This would relieve loads off of the Blue Line. There's an option that would just have the West Santa Ana line run to Union Station and the transfer could be made there. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Oct 8, 2012 16:34:39 GMT -8
Still sounds complicated for passengers. And, I am very skeptical that multiple lines can operate on the same tracks and provide consistent good service. Look at the Eposition and Blue line now at the downtown station to the junction. It is ver inconsistent and the Expo line is only running half of its planned service frequencies. Btw, I don't think I have seen any information online about the Santa Ana line connecting directly to the Regional Connector. All the options I have seen only have them going to Union Station. Another idea that I don't think works very well is to somehow connect the Sant Ana Branch with the Regional Connector and thereby having 3 lines run through downtown. That will not work if the tunnel only has 2 tracks. And some say 4 lines? Wow. That is way too complicated for passengers. And it would allow petiful service. The Santa Ana Branch line needs to be in a separate tunnel, or, go to Union Station. Short answer is that the line will have multiple destinations of lines connecting to it if West Santa Ana were to have one run that goes through the Regional Connector onto Expo Line on a 12 minute headway. This would relieve loads off of the Blue Line. There's an option that would just have the West Santa Ana line run to Union Station and the transfer could be made there. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 8, 2012 19:47:38 GMT -8
Still sounds complicated for passengers. And, I am very skeptical that multiple lines can operate on the same tracks and provide consistent good service. Look at the Exposition and Blue line now at the downtown station to the junction. It is very inconsistent and the Expo line is only running half of its planned service frequencies. Most of that problem you highlight is due to the turning back of vehicles at 7th Street rather than the through routing of lines which -the Regional Connector would -alleviate a significant problem with frequency and delays, that is where the bulk of the delays are located, if the trains turn back quickly that doesn't effect the junction. Based on that assumption, the Red and Purple Lines provide poor frequency and reliability to patrons based on this but it does a good job of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Oct 8, 2012 21:30:12 GMT -8
I'm sure that is one reasons for the inconsistency of performance. But please note, there are now two systems that are inbound to the Regional Connector and each now has wide variations in their arrival to the point where the two lines merge at the junction. Now there is a theory that a third line would make things more stable? Or, now split those first two lines into two more and that would also make things better. That sounds wrong. Imagine 3 trains showing up at the same time, each is not on schedule. But they all 3 go north through the junction, which one goes first? And, which line on the other end gets the shaft with the latest train? How does that work? Still sounds complicated for passengers. And, I am very skeptical that multiple lines can operate on the same tracks and provide consistent good service. Look at the Exposition and Blue line now at the downtown station to the junction. It is very inconsistent and the Expo line is only running half of its planned service frequencies. Most of that problem you highlight is due to the turning back of vehicles at 7th Street rather than the through routing of lines which -the Regional Connector would -alleviate a significant problem with frequency and delays, that is where the bulk of the delays are located, if the trains turn back quickly that doesn't effect the junction. Based on that assumption, the Red and Purple Lines provide poor frequency and reliability to patrons based on this but it does a good job of it. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 8, 2012 22:01:37 GMT -8
I'll say it again... diverting at least some of the Blue Line service onto Alameda as a second Regional Connector will go a long ways towards linking the Santa Ana Branch with the first.
I went to New York last week and was surprised to learn that the N and R lines split apart between midtown and brooklyn but join up again. So expanding this idea to the Blue Line out here doesn't seem that far fetched.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 8, 2012 22:01:45 GMT -8
Still sounds complicated for passengers. And, I am very skeptical that multiple lines can operate on the same tracks and provide consistent good service. Look at the Exposition and Blue line now at the downtown station to the junction. It is very inconsistent and the Expo line is only running half of its planned service frequencies. Most of that problem you highlight is due to the turning back of vehicles at 7th Street rather than the through routing of lines which -the Regional Connector would -alleviate a significant problem with frequency and delays, that is where the bulk of the delays are located, if the trains turn back quickly that doesn't effect the junction. Based on that assumption, the Red and Purple Lines provide poor frequency and reliability to patrons based on this but it does a good job of it. You can't compare expo/blue to red/purple because red/purple has grade separation for its entire length. The operational problems of the Expo/Blue Line are mostly due to the unpredictable nature of at-grade rail, not to mention the junction for the red & purple line is able to handle a much higher capacity than the blue/expo junction at washington/flower. |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 8, 2012 22:12:48 GMT -8
Most of that problem you highlight is due to the turning back of vehicles at 7th Street rather than the through routing of lines which -the Regional Connector would -alleviate a significant problem with frequency and delays, that is where the bulk of the delays are located, if the trains turn back quickly that doesn't effect the junction. Based on that assumption, the Red and Purple Lines provide poor frequency and reliability to patrons based on this but it does a good job of it. You can't compare expo/blue to red/purple because red/purple has grade separation for its entire length. The operational problems of the Expo/Blue Line are mostly due to the unpredictable nature of at-grade rail, not to mention the junction for the red & purple line is able to handle a much higher capacity than the blue/expo junction at washington/flower. Exactly, Red/Purple Line trains are always on-time 99% of the time due to the elimination of outside forces like signals, cross traffic, and morons. The Washington Junction is already limited because southbound Blue Line trains must cross in front of Northbound Expo Trains. The Red/Purple Lines also don't have this problem. Run through tracks will alleviate some of the problem, but in-general we need to reduce the amount of delay on all of these street running segments. Signal Preemption is a must. Having it connect to Union directly would be ideal, as you can use the gap in headways the foothill Blue line segment has that is caused by the interlining with the SM-East LA gold line on connector to run the Santa Ana line. Honestly, I don't see why it HAS to connect to existing infrastructure. I would much rather this end some place downtown as a separate line, because it would setup for a possible extension to someplace else, like Silver Lake or even better, Eagle Rock, where a it would meet a future cross town Burkbank Glendale LRT connecting the Orange Line and Gold Line. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 9, 2012 5:44:00 GMT -8
This line has to connect somewhere to our system, in my opinion. Maybe the ideas for the DT Connector part II should be dusted off and re-examined. Otherwise, tha Santa Ana beach is of no use at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Oct 9, 2012 6:37:23 GMT -8
This makes a lot of sense. The Santa Ana Line could be an independent line or have tracks to provide more consistent service. It could be aligned through Downtown or through Union Station and go to wherever. Destinations like Glendale or Burbank would probably serve an unserved market with rapid rail service. If intermediate areas could be served too, like Dodger Stadium or Silver Lake, that would be good too. You can't compare expo/blue to red/purple because red/purple has grade separation for its entire length. The operational problems of the Expo/Blue Line are mostly due to the unpredictable nature of at-grade rail, not to mention the junction for the red & purple line is able to handle a much higher capacity than the blue/expo junction at washington/flower. Exactly, Red/Purple Line trains are always on-time 99% of the time due to the elimination of outside forces like signals, cross traffic, and morons. The Washington Junction is already limited because southbound Blue Line trains must cross in front of Northbound Expo Trains. The Red/Purple Lines also don't have this problem. Run through tracks will alleviate some of the problem, but in-general we need to reduce the amount of delay on all of these street running segments. Signal Preemption is a must. Having it connect to Union directly would be ideal, as you can use the gap in headways the foothill Blue line segment has that is caused by the interlining with the SM-East LA gold line on connector to run the Santa Ana line. Honestly, I don't see why it HAS to connect to existing infrastructure. I would much rather this end some place downtown as a separate line, because it would setup for a possible extension to someplace else, like Silver Lake or even better, Eagle Rock, where a it would meet a future cross town Burkbank Glendale LRT connecting the Orange Line and Gold Line. |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 9, 2012 7:47:49 GMT -8
This line has to connect somewhere to our system, in my opinion. Maybe the ideas for the DT Connector part II should be dusted off and re-examined. Otherwise, tha Santa Ana beach is of no use at all. People that want rail and need to go to places along the Santa Ana line will make the transfer, regardless of rather it's on the same platform or you have to go up or downstairs to make the transfer. It would still get to downtown LA, so commuters will be fine. Not to mention, this line will be far more useful in the long run because you could extend it someplace else. I don't see why our system has to have a Market St Subway. Not every frick'in rail line going through downtown has to go through the frick'in connector. Sure, it's much easier cost and contraction-wise to have everything go through the same tracks. But operationally and capacity-wise, it's a disaster. Especially given the nature of our rail lines. |
|
