HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6961  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2024, 6:37 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Editorial: Why Metro needs its own police force
By The Times Editorial Board
June 26, 2024 1:05 PM PT

Frustrated that too many people feel unsafe on its buses and trains, and dissatisfied with the law enforcement agencies that have been patrolling the system, Metro’s governing board will consider Thursday creating its own in-house police force.

While there are legitimate concerns about the cost and logistics of building a police department from scratch, including Metro’s ability to staff up at a time when agencies are struggling to hire officers, contracting for law enforcement service is not working well. It’s time to try a different approach. Metro is facing a doom spiral if it cannot make the system safer and increase ridership. An in-house police force is not a panacea for all the system’s ills, but rather one piece of a broader safety strategy that ensures riders feel comfortable and well served on L.A. public transit.

This isn’t a new idea. Metro, and its predecessor agency — the Southern California Rapid Transit District — had its own police department for years. Its officers were recruited, hired and trained specifically to deal with the code of conduct and quality of life issues that still make up the majority of bus and train rider complaints, such as homeless people sleeping on seats, people experiencing a mental health crisis, loud music, smoking, drinking and drug use.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...ce-force-again
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6962  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 6:40 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,132
Metro OKs plan to start its own police agency, wind down contracts with sheriff, LAPD

Rachel Uranga, Libor Jany
Los Angeles Times
June 27, 2024

Frustrated by its lack of control and the skyrocketing cost of three law enforcement agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority took the first step Thursday to create its own transit police to patrol a sprawling system in which riders have grown weary of crime.

The executive board‘s 10-0 vote came after a rare appearance by the chiefs of the Los Angeles Police Department, Long Beach police and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, who defended their tactics and asked for a seat at the table as the agency sought to get rid of their contracts.

“It’s a big leap. It’s a big change for Metro,” said L.A. County Supervisor and incoming Metro Chair Janice Hahn. She said the move came from the board’s frustration, and she’s concerned that the liability and costs will be higher than anticipated.

The newly approved Transit Community Public Safety Department is being billed as one that will be more visible, accountable and sensitive to riders, a counterpoint to complaints that the LAPD and Sheriff‘s Department — big-city law enforcement agencies with histories of racial profiling — did not patrol the system consistently.
. . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6963  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 8:16 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
^ That too.

So basically the options would be TBM under all these corridors ($$$$) vs at grade light rail ($$) vs BRT ($). I think given the cost and efficacy, BRT would probably be the best option. An at grade light rail line isn't likely to be substantially faster, but have significantly more costs associated with it.
I’m of the belief that BRT is a waste of money. It’s great as a supplement, but it’s by no means a replacement for grade-separated rail in a city as populous and spread out as LA is. LRT provides the worst ROI.

The problem is that LA didn’t build enough HRT back when it was much cheaper. If it had, say, 50 miles of HRT across 3-4 lines, there would be enough momentum and critical mass to make HRT investments more cost-effective because of the existing ridership, greater ridership potential, and interlining possibilities.

I’m of the belief that the method Bechtel is proposing to construct the Sepulveda Pass corridor should be how new HRT lines are constructed in LA: single-bore tunnels, smaller station boxes that easily allow for platform extensions, automated trains every 90 seconds, and elevated portions.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6964  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 8:51 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,832
^ Does your opinion of BRT include grade separated BRT like the Orange Line in the Valley?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6965  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 8:57 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
^ Does your opinion of BRT include grade separated BRT like the Orange Line in the Valley?
The G (Orange) Line is gold-standard BRT. I hope in the future that the city will allow for more dense new housing along its length.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6966  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 9:01 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
The G (Orange) Line is gold-standard BRT. I hope in the future that the city will allow for more dense new housing along its length.
Agreed. I've always felt that it functions as a good alternative to light rail. Grade separation is key in Los Angeles... whether it bus or rail, if it's stuck in traffic it's not nearly as effective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6967  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2024, 10:09 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
^ Does your opinion of BRT include grade separated BRT like the Orange Line in the Valley?
The Orange Line isn't grade-separated but rather has its own dedicated ROW. There aren't many other places in LA where you can build something similar except along Vermont and Huntington (will never happen).

So yeah, I'd say my opinion holds because I see BRT as incremental improvements that only delay their eventual would-be replacements (e.g., Vermont HRT).
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6968  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:57 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,132
Metrolink to make significant service increase this fall

Travis Schlepp
KTLA
June 28, 2024



More trains, optimized schedules

Southern California passenger rail service Metrolink is making a major expansion this fall, significantly increasing the number of trains in service and optimizing arrival and departure times to reduce the time spent waiting to transfer.

On Friday, the Metrolink Board of Directors approved its 2025 fiscal year budget, which includes a plan to increase the number of trains in service by about 30% across the entire Metrolink system.

At a media event held at Union Station, Metrolink CEO Darren Kettle, fresh off inking an extension to remain in that position through 2029, said the expanded service is meant to attract more riders who may view the service as something only used by commuters.

“I call it the first step in our transformation from commuter railroads to regional passenger railroad,” Kettle said.

The decision to target more recreational riders was made in part due to challenges that came from the coronavirus pandemic.

Ridership took a nosedive to about 10% during the pandemic due to stay-at-home orders and more people working from home. Kettle says the latter appears to be a permanent shift in the nation, and if Metrolink wants more people to use the service, it’ll need to become a more attractive transit option for riders who aren’t just going to and from work.

“The world changed four years ago. And, you know, we’re all trying to figure out, how do we adapt to the new workforce situation, but not just rely on that?” Kettle said. He added that any transit agency focused solely on commuters will likely have a long, challenging road to recovery.



“We used to get some 40-plus percent of our revenues from fares, today we get about 13% of our revenues from fares,” he said. Metrolink’s county partners, as well as the federal government, have helped carry some of the burden from the loss of revenue.

But rather than focusing on getting back to pre-pandemic ridership numbers, Metrolink is viewing the sharp decline as a new baseline, with the only way to go being up.

Kettle, who lives in Ventura County and rides the train on days when he’s not working from home, said the biggest request he’s received from fellow riders is more regular service.

“We do surveys and ask questions and just unsolicited feedback is, ‘Give us more trains.’ So that’s what we’re going to do,” Kettle said. “We’re gonna get more trains.”

The Orange County and San Bernardino lines were two specific parts of Metrolink’s system that Kettle said will experience “significant” service increases. A similar service increase was implemented last year on the Antelope Valley line.

Metrolink will also roll out a new concept in which trains won’t always run an entire service route from end to end; some will go back and forth more frequently between regions with more demand.

In addition to more trains, Metrolink is adjusting its schedules to make it easier for riders to make transfers without having to wait for long periods of time.



Right now, someone who arrives at Union Station from one of the Metrolink lines may have to wait an hour or longer to transfer to another.

“Pulse scheduling,” as its called in the transit industry, will significantly cut the wait times for transfers by modifying arrival and departure times so they are more closely aligned with other trains. Metrolink says someone making a transfer in Union Station will likely have to wait less than 20 minutes to make a transfer from one line to another.

As Metrolink pointed out earlier this year, a theoretical trip between Burbank and Tustin beginning at 8:30 a.m. would take more than six hours, because there currently isn’t a train to Tustin out of Union Station until 2 in the afternoon.

When pulse scheduling goes into effect, that trip could be cut down to 90 minutes with a transfer taking less than 20 minutes. A fictional trip between downtown Pomona and Van Nuys using similar parameters would also a dramatic drop in total trip time.

The specific launch date for increased trains was not immediately released, but Kettle said he expected it to go into effect in late October. An exact breakdown of when and where trains will be deployed has yet to be finalized, with Metrolink officials saying a full plan could be approved by July or August.

Metrolink hopes that more train frequency and shorter transfer windows will help reinvigorate previous riders and bring in more first-timers.

In addition to service modifications, Metrolink says it sees other areas to grow, including on its San Bernardino Line, which includes a stop in Rancho Cucamonga immediately adjacent to a planned station for Brightline West — the high-speed train system that will connect Southern California with Las Vegas.

Metrolink’s popular Student Adventure Pass Program, which allows any student from kindergarten through grad school to ride throughout the entire system for free, was also renewed as part of the 2025 budget.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6969  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:40 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,509
Since Metrolink is a sprawling network that connects nearly every part of the LA CSA to Downtown, I think one way to build out LA's HRT network is to make Metrolink thru-running and have commuter rail lines also function as urban rail similar to JR in Japan. First switch to single-level coaches operating at greater frequencies, then electrify, and then build branches. This approach should be more politically viable (e.g., commuter lines from the Santa Clarita and San Gabriel Valleys using the Harbor Subdivision to reach LAX) and cost-effective than building entirely new infrastructure from scratch.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6970  
Old Posted Today, 12:59 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Since Metrolink is a sprawling network that connects nearly every part of the LA CSA to Downtown, I think one way to build out LA's HRT network is to make Metrolink thru-running and have commuter rail lines also function as urban rail similar to JR in Japan. First switch to single-level coaches operating at greater frequencies, then electrify, and then build branches. This approach should be more politically viable (e.g., commuter lines from the Santa Clarita and San Gabriel Valleys using the Harbor Subdivision to reach LAX) and cost-effective than building entirely new infrastructure from scratch.
I read one of the biggest challenges to Metrolink electrification is that it doesn’t own the majority of its tracks and it also shares a large percentage of its tracks with freight rail. And in some cases it’s only single track. Then there’s also the issue of grade separation. How much of that is true?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6971  
Old Posted Today, 1:29 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
I read one of the biggest challenges to Metrolink electrification is that it doesn’t own the majority of its tracks and it also shares a large percentage of its tracks with freight rail. And in some cases it’s only single track. Then there’s also the issue of grade separation. How much of that is true?
I can vouch for single tracking, at-grade crossings, and shared freight-passenger traffic on the Antelope Valley Line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6972  
Old Posted Today, 3:35 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,239
I wonder if long term, commuter rail operators will ditch locomotive hauled bilevel trains which usually exist to maximize capacity but only in bursts since they only run infrequently.

Instead they could run DMU/EMU/Battery-MU trains that are single-level which are shorter (but can certainly be coupled together) and run them at much higher frequencies 7 days a week.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.