|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 9, 2012 14:17:26 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. Actually I could because the implication that you can't run multiple lines through on one corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 9, 2012 14:19:34 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. The Santa Ana Branch will still have use because if it's routed appropriately would effectively relieve the over-crowding on the Blue Line from Downtown to Green Line connection. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Oct 9, 2012 16:31:39 GMT -8
I have seen nothing official online indicating the Santa Ana Line is being studied as going through the Regional Connector. 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. The Santa Ana Branch will still have use because if it's routed appropriately would effectively relieve the over-crowding on the Blue Line from Downtown to Green Line connection. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 9, 2012 16:53:59 GMT -8
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. I agree that it should eventually run through downtown, but the question is, where? Don't forget, the Santa Ana Branch isn't the only line that might connect with the Regional Connector. While its further down Metro's LRTP pipeline, the Yellow Line is planned to link with the connector on Glendale Blvd/2nd st. But it stops there. Why not actually make it go somewhere by connecting it to another line will end in downtown, in this case the Santa Ana Branch? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Oct 9, 2012 20:26:07 GMT -8
As long as there is a transfer station to allow passengers to get from the Santa Ana Line to the Blue or Expo/Gold there is really no reason spends gobs of money to try and split the Blue line in order to fit a third line onto the same tracks as those for the Regional Connector and essentially double-down on an unreliable system that is additionally more complicated for passengers. The New York example is misleading. That system has a lot of tracks to operate trains. That provides more options than what LA is building. LA's system will be deeper and basically have only 2 tracks. Is a map available of this Yellow Line that you speak of? 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. I agree that it should eventually run through downtown, but the question is, where? Don't forget, the Santa Ana Branch isn't the only line that might connect with the Regional Connector. While its further down Metro's LRTP pipeline, the Yellow Line is planned to link with the connector on Glendale Blvd/2nd st. But it stops there. Why not actually make it go somewhere by connecting it to another line will end in downtown, in this case the Santa Ana Branch? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 10, 2012 10:38:49 GMT -8
This is the only version of the "Yellow Line" that's appeared on a map that I'm aware of. The geography is off a bit (whoever made it was probably just guessing).  The impression I have is that it would go like this: Starting from North Hollywood Station, the line would travel on Chandler (possibly sharing tracks with a rail-upgraded Orange Line, or perhaps Burbank Blvd.) and connect to the Burbank Metrolink. It would then use the Valley Subdivision/Metrolink ROW until diverting via tunnel/trench to Brand Blvd. From here, the line would follow Brand (which eventually becomes Glendale Blvd.) all the way Downtown, passing through Silver Lake, Edendale, and Echo Park. This would essentially duplicate service of the former Glendale PE Line/current Metro Bus 92 route. It's very ill-defined. Aside from where is starts and ends, I don't think Metro even has any idea where this is supposed to go. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 10, 2012 11:44:16 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. The Santa Ana Branch will still have use because if it's routed appropriately would effectively relieve the over-crowding on the Blue Line from Downtown to Green Line connection. That's a really wild assumption, the two lines serve different markets and if anything, the network effect will likely just increase the Blue Line ridership instead of reduce it. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 10, 2012 11:46:24 GMT -8
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. Actually I could because the implication that you can't run multiple lines through on one corridor. ..I mean, yeah on a map that's how it works, but in terms of infrastructure, it isn't. The Red/Purple Line have the tremendous advantage of a flying junction, where the inbound and outbound trains never interact with each other, thus increasing train capacity, and there is only 1 junction to deal with. The Regional Connector does not have any flying junctions, and all inbound and outbound trains must deal with each other and not once, but twice! |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 10, 2012 12:53:36 GMT -8
Guest387, the goal of ANY rail system is to reduce as many transfers as possible. If splitting the Blue Line is really that complicated for riders, then just divert it completely onto the Regional Connector II. And how many "gobs" of money do you think it would take to build a said second Regional Connector? A billion? I really doubt it, particularly since Alameda is wide enough for it to be elevated instead of a subway, at least until Little Tokyo. As for the Yellow Line, it is also in Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) map:  A few notes: The Yellow Line, instead of turning Northwest onto the Metrolink ROW through Atwater, should contine North on Brand into more populated Glendale, and then head West to Burbank Metrolink, either by traversing the 134 & 5 freeways OR on Glenoaks Blvd. Also, should the Orange-Gold line connection run along the 134, it should only do so briefly on an elevated viaduct between Harvey Dr and Glendale ave (with a station there). From that point, it should continue West to Glendale and on to Burbank Metrolink station, depending on how the Yellow Line gets there, which i mentioned above. I don't really see the point of the "Burbank Glendale Transit Corridor". It doesn't really serve that many important areas that the Yellow Line wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 10, 2012 13:06:18 GMT -8
Guest387, the goal of ANY rail system is to reduce as many transfers as possible. If splitting the Blue Line is really that complicated for riders, then just divert it completely onto the Regional Connector II. And how many "gobs" of money do you think it would take to build a said second Regional Connector? A billion? I really doubt it, particularly since Alameda is wide enough for it to be elevated instead of a subway, at least until Little Tokyo. The goal of every transit system is to move people in the most efficient manner, and this doesn't always mean reducing transfers. One seat rides are not always beneficial to a customer, they can create lower frequencies, which increase wait time, which then increases travel time. That's why metro runs a grid, grids are good for high frequency service and they decrease travel time by reducing wait time (yes, even counter-intuitively it does include connection wait time) |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 10, 2012 13:58:20 GMT -8
^ In some parts of the county a grid makes sense, like South LA and the San Fernando Valley. But other places like Glendale, Eagle Rock, and the San Gabriel Valley, where the footprints of past PE rail history are clearly visible, need a more wheel-like system.
Is that the kind of grid you're referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 10, 2012 14:09:05 GMT -8
The Santa Ana Branch will still have use because if it's routed appropriately would effectively relieve the over-crowding on the Blue Line from Downtown to Green Line connection. That's a really wild assumption, the two lines serve different markets and if anything, the network effect will likely just increase the Blue Line ridership instead of reduce it. It's not wild it's very accurate, all you have to do it notice what happens when there's a delay to the Blue Line. What's the alternative that connect passengers to the Green Line that Metro tells patrons to use, it's the Silver Line as it is a BRT like service that runs north south from serving the same Regional trip market as the Blue Line does from Downtown to the Green Line, another aspect of the network effect. That's one of the biggest ridership pieces of the current Blue Line as it is the only North-South high capacity line running between Downtown and the Green Line, add another north-south line serving the same regional trip market and notice how in the interim, ridership will shift from the old line to the new line. In the EIR, when discussing the ridership forecasts for the Regional Connector, guess what was stated in terms of ridership? That it would reduce the ridership off of the Red-Purple Lines by 20,000 as these trips will no longer be transferring between the two lines as there is another route serving the same Regional trip market (Union Station to 7th Street). Now that relief of capacity is needed to serve the Purple Line extension to Westwood. So this is argument is far from wild it is normal. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 10, 2012 14:14:09 GMT -8
Actually I could because the implication that you can't run multiple lines through on one corridor. ..I mean, yeah on a map that's how it works, but in terms of infrastructure, it isn't. The Red/Purple Line have the tremendous advantage of a flying junction, where the inbound and outbound trains never interact with each other, thus increasing train capacity, and there is only 1 junction to deal with. The Regional Connector does not have any flying junctions, and all inbound and outbound trains must deal with each other and not once, but twice! Yet somehow the trains on the Chicago Loop have elevated flat junctions throughout the system and can move at a frequency between all lines of every one minute. |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Oct 10, 2012 14:32:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 10, 2012 15:21:07 GMT -8
..I mean, yeah on a map that's how it works, but in terms of infrastructure, it isn't. The Red/Purple Line have the tremendous advantage of a flying junction, where the inbound and outbound trains never interact with each other, thus increasing train capacity, and there is only 1 junction to deal with. The Regional Connector does not have any flying junctions, and all inbound and outbound trains must deal with each other and not once, but twice! Yet somehow the trains on the Chicago Loop have elevated flat junctions throughout the system and can move at a frequency between all lines of every one minute. Chicago, my favorite American city, has the tremendous advantage of having most of its rail service grade separated, in addition to some express tracks and even then it has its problems. It isn't uncommon to be delayed for a train ahead of you, or to be put into express service to make up the schedule. Again, you're not not making a fair comparison, our system has many grade crossings and we have many street running portions which add lots of variables to our service. You can indeed through-route to Santa Ana, but it won't be pretty when things go wrong, which happens a lot here. Iy also handicaps frequency increases on the east and northern services, in addition to adding a high level of complexity to operations, there is very little interlining in Chicago, we should try to stay away from this for rail service with this amount of variables because it will ultimately lead to consistently bad service. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 16, 2012 10:46:26 GMT -8
I think the point about number of transfer is really tied in with routing of this rail line into Downtown.
If the line goes up Alameda, it will intersect with Expo-Eastside at 1st street. I made a proposal way earlier in this thread that Metro should preserve the existing N-S aligned surface level Gold Line station in Little Tokyo rather than demolish it, so that it could be used as a station for West Santa Ana Branch. The Alameda alignment will also allow 1-transfer ride to Long Beach-Azusa train at Union Station.
If the line goes up next to West bank of LA River directly into Union Station, it will not intersect with Expo-Eastside (the Eastside line is elevated over the river and there is no station). It's problematic in many ways as it will require 2-transfers for someone to get over to Expo-Eastside line: 1st transfer to south bound LB-Azusa at Union station; then 2nd transfer to Expo-Eastside line somewhere in Downtown. As you can see, it involves a lot of wrong direction travel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 16, 2012 12:13:45 GMT -8
I'm also in favor of keeping the at-grade Little Tokyo station.
My only concern is how it will tie into the Regional Connector tracks from the underground Little Tokyo station to reach Union Station.
Is this even feasible?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 16, 2012 12:36:53 GMT -8
If Alameda is chosen, the Santa Ana Branch will probably be street running until it joins the existing Gold Line (future LB-Azusa Line) track north of Little Tokyo/1st Street as it emerges from the underground station from the Regional Connector tracks. The Expo-East Side line and the LB-Azusa line tracks will be completely below grade at this intersection so the Santa Ana tracks won't tie to the Regional Connector (at least for revenue service); which is fine by me.
Metro can still move trains around different lines for non-revenue service (there is supposed to be service tracks from East Side to Union Station; and of course, you can always move south bound from Union station onto either Regional Connector or Santa Ana Branch under this scenario) but I don't see any need for revenue service trains that goes from Santa Ana Branch to either East LA or Santa Monica.
Transfer from Santa Ana to either Expo-East Side or LB-Azusa line will involve a short walk from street level down to the new underground station. If Metro plans far ahead enough, they can even preserve enough right of way from the current track (which will be torn up) to add a direct portal connection between the surface platform and underground platform(s).
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 17, 2012 0:15:27 GMT -8
I love all these possibilities. If the West Bank Option 3 is pursued, I'd favor a north-bound Blue Line by-pass that goes from Washington Station, onto Alameda St., and merges onto the Santa Ana Line tracks. A Blue Line train coming in from Azusa that is heading out to Long Beach can probably afford to by-pass the stations between Little Tokyo and San Pedro. If not, you can always exit at LAUS or Washington Station and catch the next one that goes to those stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 6, 2012 3:43:01 GMT -8
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. Actually, Metro's LRV spec would allow them to run in a Red/Purple line tunnel as they are around 1 foot narrower and are made to negotiate curves much tighter than the subway cars. The loading gauge (platform height) is the same, though if the LRVs would use the actual subway stations, some sort of adaptor on the cars or on the platforms would need to be used to bridge the gap. I've ridden on LRVs in Amsterdam that do just that in the heavy rail tunnel. As for the pantographs, they would most likely stay in the most downward position and a wire or powered beam could be installed in the crown of the tunnel. There is still room to accommodate it. The likelihood of all this happening is not very high of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Jan 20, 2013 8:03:05 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post in other rooms. But I heard that the wye on the Expo Line with the Blue Line will be fixed in the first weekend in February.
|
|
|
|
Post by guestguest on Mar 10, 2013 16:36:12 GMT -8
Is there some trick to getting a registration approved? I registered months ago and everytime I try to login I'm told it's awaiting administrator approval?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 11, 2013 14:31:02 GMT -8
I didn't even realize that the AA was completed for the WSAB/PEROW and posted on their website. I'm trying not to cherry pic. It's just the more I read, the more muddled the information was getting. Here it goes:
--(SCAG?) Staff Recommendations are for Light Rail Transit (LRT) technology
--Steering Committee recommendations are for LRT and Low Speed MagLev
--The OrangeLine Developement Agency supports the Steering Committee's recommendations
--West Bank 3 Alternative is preferred
--Huntington Park prefers for it to run on the Harbor Subdivision then south onto Santa Fe Av. and finally east onto the Randolph St./Whittier ROW. They would also like the station on Gage to be relocated to Florence
--Vernon prefers an elevated portion through their city and that it also not run on Pacific Bl.
--The L.A. part is recommended to be built first and in two (2) Minimum Operable Segments (MOS). MOS 1 from LAUS to the Green Line (6.9 miles). MOS 2 from the Green Line to the LA/OC line (7.5 miles)
I'll try to read as much of the AA as I can, but as I stated, the more I read initially, the more confusing it started getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Mar 11, 2013 19:00:24 GMT -8
The poster 2 spots above sounds like me, but it wasn't!
Gateway gent..... The WSAB is a big idea. There's ample opportunity for confusion.
As for the project being divided into segments... I agree with how you summarized it. The northern portion seems more connected to users, and, more of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 12, 2013 14:57:31 GMT -8
Hey Guest387, thank you. I didn't realize there were so many players involved and that's not even including Orange County!
It troubled me initially that the OrangeLine Development Agency (OLDA) is involved because I think they're going to keep pushing the Low Speed MagLev agenda. On the other hand, Orange County has taken a stance against Low Speed MagLev because it's perceived as an unproven technology and its monumental cost. So even if Low Speed MagLev were chosen, what would be built is a 14.4 mile long line to the LA/OC border with--according to old schematics--a single stop in Southgate. Hmm?
Huntington Park (HP) and Vernon's desire to not have it run on Pacific Bl. is understandable. Most of that area is industrial with a lot of truck traffic. I also think the idea of running this line west on the Randolph St./Whittier ROW to an elevated junction at the Blue Line to share tracks and stations (Slauson, Vernon, and Washington), to a switch that would send it north of Washington Bl. onto it's own tracks with a slight curve that directs it north onto Alameda St. to Lil Tokyo Station, has not been explored enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 12, 2013 15:20:37 GMT -8
I think a better idea is to run it up to Olympic and THEN west to Alameda.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 12, 2013 21:58:35 GMT -8
That would have been within the scope of the East Bank Alternative. It was disqualified because it would have interfered with Amtrak, Metrolink, freight line operations, as well as the future CHSR. Never mind simply trying to get it onto Olympic Bl.! I wish I could cut and paste a picture of Downey Rd./Grande Vista Av. between Bandini Bl. and Olympic Bl. so you could see the jumbled mess of track systems this alternative would have to fly over. But this is what happens when you build a transit system by piece-meal and fail to account for future expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 14, 2013 11:18:56 GMT -8
JD, since you allude to connecting Boyle Heights to Huntington Park, Southgate, Walnut Park, and Lynwood, an idea I have favored for a long time. I think it could be achieved via Soto St./Miles Av., though it's plausible Huntington Park would balk at running the line at-grade in front of Huntington Park High School. If money were no object, tunneling or trenching it between Bandini Bl. and Florence Av. with a slight course modification so it ran from Soto St. to Pacific Bl. with stations on Belgrave Av. (between Slauson and Randolph) and Florence (plus a few more until it reaches the Green Line), would work great.
|
|
|
|
Post by guestguest on Mar 18, 2013 16:22:26 GMT -8
Since administrators don't approve new registrations, I guess I'll ask my questions here. (found this place after googling around trying to figure out why the work at venice blvd seemed so achingly slow).
Will the Venice Bridge for expo phase two have a column in the middle of the road? If so, will that column take away one of the two left turn lanes (onto Robertson) from east bound venice?
Is the cement structure on the north side of Venice an abutment rather than a column? Is the bridge going to slope down to grade right after the cement structure with retained fill?
Why hasn't any work begun on the additional bridge column on the south side of venice? Will this column require a street realignment?
Every time I've ridden expo I've never seen anyone get on the train at Farmdale or leave the train at farmdale. I thought I remembered the LATimes article on Expo phase one having just major intersection stops, with an option (exercised) for an additional redundant stop at USC, rather than just at Vermont/Expo, The first time I rode Expo I was baffled there was a stop in the middle of no where so to speak, just a couple blocks from other major intersections. Why on earth did they add a stop in the middle of nowhere and is there anyway to get rid of a station that nobody is using?
|
|
|
|
Post by chuckchuck on Mar 18, 2013 18:39:43 GMT -8
Farmdale station was built for Dorsey High School and the adjacent Park/Rec Center. I agree that it is rarely used the times I have travelled via Expo but I've yet to experience the ridership during the before/after school rush.
|
|
