Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
It's not about building more subways per se, but rather using an existing revenue stream that offers more flexibility than Measures R/M, which require the outlined projects (transit and otherwise) first be completed before "wet-dream" ideas like, say, extending heavy rail to Whittier can be realized?
|
Interesting twist.
However, if that corridor needs more grade separations (which based off past posts you have implied) in the form of subway tunnels, you're back to square one where it is best to accelerate those projects and at least get the core minimum operating segments (MOS) completed before moving to the next phase or including new projects to politically leap frog over other projects.
Which goes back to thankfully in my role as an advocate for the Business Community forced the Metro Board to have a "Come to Jesus" moment in 2018-19 to realistically look at the cashflow and develop core projects to complete so that the board stays on task and not get distracted to add other projects (Vermont HRT, LA Streetcar, Pico/Flower subway station with the Washington/Flower junction grade separated) without realizing the cash flow and try to politically leapfrog no matter how tempting all of which wastes more scarce Measure M, Prop A and C resources.
It's not perfect but its slowly improving.
Quote:
|
If the trunks are long and significantly longer than the branches, or if you get creative and design a system where each branch of one line forms the spine of another line (something that I'm playing around with), then I think it's less of a problem — especially if the trains are automated — because most people would be getting on and off along the trunk.
|
With that idea for one seat rides - if I am reading what you are suggesting correctly- you are sacrificing the strengths of frequency and reliability in the automation to have a route go on multiple trunks? Which means you will need a lot of passing tracks and track duplication.
Just take a page out of Paris Metro, keep the trunk with a single route (Like WMATA's Red Line) on that line and have high frequency and design the transfer stations require a minimum of vertical circulation to make them easier and intuitive to use. If you are running service at a high frequency and you need to transfer, the transfer time is minimal. Add their Metro with an overlay of the RER along with their surface LRT lines that they have expanded over the last two decades and that is a great network.
We are building a transit foundation, just stay the course and at least complete the BRT/Bus Only lane network, improve bus/rail operations along with finishing the pillar projects.
Quote:
BART's issues come from the fact that its trunks consist of 3-4 lines, while WMATA is designed to get people in and out of a small, office-heavy core and because there are relatively few stations that serve urban residential areas.
With a more web-like network (i.e., less core-centric and more neighborhood-serving), the more likely you are to have short-distance trips (i.e., trunk trips). Because LA's urban structure lends itself to more transfers, a trunk is only inconvenient if the first train that arrives isn't part of the branch the transfer rider wants to travel on. Hence you want to make trunk corridors as lengthy as possible to increase the chances of the riders' destinations being situated along the trunk. I also think that seeing more trains coming and going (whether or not it's the train one wants to get on) has psychological value.
Do you agree with the general idea that interlining is a more cost-effective way to rapidly expand our HRT system in all directions (rather than stand-alone lines)?
|
Depends on how wide of a network we are trying to serve?
I think Paris, Madrid and many German Stadbahn/S-Bahn metro systems is the model LA should mimic. Frequent tight grid of core lines with frequent regional lines with multiple core connections to/from urban lines.
For example, I had suggested and advocated for the Southeast Gateway Corridor become a electrified Metrolink line because;
- 1) it is not sharing tracks with the A Line or any other LRT line,
- 2) The northern terminal is Union Station,
- 3) avoids a needless and costly tunnel to reach Union Station by combining this project with the Link US to gain more Federal Dollars and help spearhead electrifying Metrolink on some core routes like Antelope Valley or the San Bernardino Line.
- But alas right now that got shot down...at the moment.
FRUGAL comprehensive planning and thinking is what is needed -which I believe you are articulating here- because you have to be creative to figure out ways to expand the system with limited resources and do more with less. I can go back 6-7 years when all the board's attention for damn near the first week of Measure M dollars being collected was to look at let's grade separate Washington/Flower and I am thinking, Board, you have this Southeast Gateway project that is going to require a costly tunnel, couldn't we try to combine efforts to save resources?
Quote:
The problem with the state of LA rail is that there isn't a critical mass of ridership that demands costly, transformational game-changers. The current slate of projects won't be enough to accumulate that critical mass because it's either too slow, not car-competitive, or doesn't take people where they want to go.
The public will hear about the opening of this line and that line and how it will help alleviate congestion, only to be inevitably disappointed.
|
I think HLA that voters approved in March will slow down the expansion of curb lane BRT network on busy bus corridors throughout the city/region. Why is that important? This is where we start mapping out and proving where the future rail corridors will go! And this is a tried and true way to comprehensively and systematically expand the system.
I personally believe the way we are building out the system once we finish;
MOS segments of the
A Line Eastside extension to the Citadel and
Southeast Gateway, we will start to build the web-like grid network (with the other pillar projects
K Line South to Torrance & North to Hollywood and
Sepulveda Pass, complete the
C Line to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs,
B Line to Burbank Airport)that we need, combined with
Metrolink service improvements and double tracking on core lines (Antelope Valley, Ventura County Line to Chatsworth, San Bernardino Line) we can get a lot accomplished and serve more riders.
Prev
Linear Mode
