Re: LA Rail Revival

["Tom Wetzel" <tlwetzel@ix.netcom.com>]

elson@westworld.com wrote in message <7k42ea$6gg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7k3q80$3fn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>  tomwetzel@my-deja.com wrote:

>I disagree; it has the exact same rolling stock as the Metro Blue Line
>(which I'm sure be both do agree is LRT),

This is irrelevant. If they ran LRTs in the New York subway (as is
technically feasible), would that make it light rail?

>and the stations are pretty
>much similar, so just because there's no street running the Green Line
>becomes heavy rail?

No, not just because no street running. I said completely grade separated.

>Besides, the Green Line isn't *totally* grade-
>separated; as there are grade crossings in the yard area.

That's silly. Lot's of heavy rail lines have similar "grade crossings".
That's not what people have in mind when they talk about a line
being "grade separated." They are obviously referring to the relationship
between revenue trackage and public streets.

>
>Both the Docklands Light Rail and the Vancouver Skytrain are third-rail
>powered, BTW. Not the case with the Green Line.

So what? The Blue Line in Boston, which is heavy rail, uses overhead,
as do lots of heavy rail lines around the world.

>
>except
>> that the Green Line has a pathetic ridership...only 23,000 boardings
>> a day.
>
>So did the Blue Line several years ago, but we get the point (it's a
>well-known fact you're no fan of the Green Line :)). This will change
>with the addition of longer trains (many potential Green Line commuters
>are turned off because of extreme overcrowding during the rush hour on
>the single-car trains), higher speeds (within the next few months the max
>speed will be increased from 55 to 65 mph) and the eventual expansion of
>LAX.


Not according to MTA projections. The 1995 MTA 20-year plan projected
less than 2,000 additional boardings from the proposed extension to the
LAX Transit Center.

The best thing they could do would be to extend the line to the Norwalk
Metrolink station, and that is projected to add only 4,000 boardings.

Whether I'm a "fan" of the Green Line is irrelevant. It's irresponsible to
advocate expenditure of large amounts of public funds if there isn't
the justification. There are always trade-offs. Just consider this: For the
money spent building the Green Line they could have built the Expo line,
which was projected to handle 69,900 boardings, or the Red Line extension
to Boyle Heights, which was projected to carry 32,000.

They should have built the Green Line as a busway as originally proposed
by the RTD, and used that money for rail lines with a better justification.

Tom Wetzel