I'm guessing you agree that the problem isn't the eastbound that heads to Union Station (a tie in is relatively easily), but rather the westbound tunnel heading into 7th/Metro?
Yes, getting the westbound "Whittier tunnel" to connect to the existing (westbound) AR tunnel would definitely be the tricky part.
I guess the question is, how close are those tunnels?
If there is a good 15-20 feet between the walls of the tunnels, the westbound tunnel could be widened (10 feet) in the section under 7th to fit the tie-in, which would connect to a new Union Station bypass tunnel that would need a steep incline to get above the eastbound Union Station tunnel prior to the curve.
The distance between tunnels is "14.4-20.0 ft" throughout the system.
Now let's look at how to get the westbound Whittier tunnel past the eastbound AL Red Line tunnel. The Red Line dives at a 3% grade leaving the 7th St./Metro Center station. So we have no hope of getting the connector tunnel under the existing tunnels.
If we then decide to go over, as you did, lets assume it goes upward at the maximum allowable grade of 4%. Red Line tunnels have an exterior diameter of ~21 feet. The stacked tunnels around Wilshire/Vermont provide 10 feet of vertical clearance between the top of the lower tunnels and the bottom of the upper tunnels, so we can assume the same here. Therefore, the westbound Whittier tunnel must rise 31 feet to clear the existing AL Red Line tunnel.
With the lower tunnel descending at 3% and the crossover tunnel rising at 4%, we would therefore need approximately 440 feet . The distance between the end of the platforms at 7th St./Metro Center at the beginning of the horizontal curve is roughly 400 feet. Doable? Just barely...
Also, how long is the cut-and-cover box? Is there room to push the platform west (providing more distance for the westbound tunnel widening and distance for the incline)?
Likely not possible, because the tunnels curve immediately after leaving 7th St./Metro Center going westward and because we would want to keep the Hope-portal side of the station connected to the Red Line platforms.
If we then decide to go over, as you did, lets assume it goes upward at the maximum allowable grade of 4%. Red Line tunnels have an exterior diameter of ~21 feet. The stacked tunnels around Wilshire/Vermont provide 10 feet of vertical clearance between the top of the lower tunnels and the bottom of the upper tunnels, so we can assume the same here. Therefore, the westbound Whittier tunnel must rise 31 feet to clear the existing AL Red Line tunnel.
With the lower tunnel descending at 3% and the crossover tunnel rising at 4%, we would therefore need approximately 440 feet . The distance between the end of the platforms at 7th St./Metro Center at the beginning of the horizontal curve is roughly 400 feet. Doable? Just barely...
By no stretch of the imagination does it sound easy. Three questions though:
1) Are you sure about the tunnels curving into 7th/Metro from MacArthur Park. I don't remember that from the drawings I saw, admittedly months/over a year ago.
2) Are the Breda's limited to 4% or is it simply the TBMs that are limited to 4%?
3) Can the ten foot clearance be lessened by widening the load distribution of the top tunnel.
I've been assuming the incline would be constructed via cut-and-cover, and the tie-in would be constructed by widening the tunnel from above the tunnel exterior or mining it from the interior.
"If that passion were directed at fighting for grade separation instead of fighting the people who want grade separation, it might actually get us closer to the type of rail transit system this region needs and deserves."
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #203 on Nov 3, 2009, 8:42pm »
Dan, the other line is the current Silver Line (El Monte Busway) converted to a HRT line. The north-south line on Rosemead was arbitrarily chosen by Jeremy, and while I don't know if that's the "right" north-south line I think it's as good as any connecting network line that I can think of. It would do for the Eastside what the Crenshaw Line will do for the Westside.
Provided there's planning and leadership for the Eastside, of course!
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #204 on Nov 4, 2009, 2:47pm »
Thanks, Ken
Wouldn't it be more likely that the Harbor Transitway and El Monte Busway be upgraded to light rail and move Downtown through the Regional Connector with the Blue Line?
If it were a HRT extension of the Red Line and there was a HRT extension of the Purple Line on Whittier, which one would have the higher ridership and be the higher priority?
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #205 on Nov 4, 2009, 3:51pm »
I've thought about that for some time, Dan...and to my way of thinking, I don't really care whether it's HRT or LRT at this immediate time so much as that they're studied!
For example, if we were to make a LRT from the Harbor to the El Monte Busway, with an underground segment that would serve as another "Downtown Connector" or another line to serve and to connect to Downtown, that would be fine with me.
I just want more than one line for the Eastside over the course of the next 25 years.
I've thought about that for some time, Dan...and to my way of thinking, I don't really care whether it's HRT or LRT at this immediate time so much as that they're studied!
For example, if we were to make a LRT from the Harbor to the El Monte Busway, with an underground segment that would serve as another "Downtown Connector" or another line to serve and to connect to Downtown, that would be fine with me.
I just want more than one line for the Eastside over the course of the next 25 years.
With LRT on the SR-60 and (hopefully) HRT to Whittier, wouldn't it make more sense to convert the Harbor Transitway/El Monte Busway to Metrolink?
That way, we could see a second north/south Metrolink line beyond just the Harbor Subdivision.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 390 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #208 on Nov 5, 2009, 7:34am »
To those of you suggesting to use freeways to add track mileage, remember that if you have to take away any kind of freeway lane, you have to add another one back in its place.
"If that passion were directed at fighting for grade separation instead of fighting the people who want grade separation, it might actually get us closer to the type of rail transit system this region needs and deserves."
That way, we could see a second north/south Metrolink line beyond just the Harbor Subdivision.
IMO, that's what the Foothill Gold Line extension should have been, branching off from the El Monte Station.
I think LRT should continue to at least Azusa on the Foothill line. Metrolink would be nice, but the service just isn't frequent enough and it's more expensive to ride. It would be cheaper to build though, right?
However, I would definitely favor anything past Azusa to be Metrolink and connect with the El Monte Station as you said and the existing Foothill 2B stations (Montclair, etc.).
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #214 on Nov 8, 2009, 2:01am »
Regarding Metrolink to the northern San Gabriel Valley: Metrolink (SCRRA and/or LACMTA) owns a track from about a mile east of Baldwin Park (Orange Ave. Junction) to Azusa. It's the former Pacific Electric "Rivas Cutoff", built in 1950 to connect the San Bernardino Line to the Monrovia-Glendora Line, allowing the eastern end to remain for freight service when the portion between El Sereno and Monrovia was abandoned in 1951. It would require extensive rebuilding to support passenger operation to Azusa, and the City of Azusa might have objections to extending the line eastward a few blocks on 9th St. (where PE had street running past their Azusa depot) to be near the Gold Line station. As far as I know, the only service currently using this track is a once-a-week local freight. Among other things, it has a fairly sharp curve running around the edge of an abandoned quarry which would hamper any sort of high-speed operation.
I'd heard that before. Do you know what law that is?
This sounds like some that should be targeted in the Transportation Re-authorization Bill.
I don't know if it's state or federal, but I remembered when the county was adding hundreds of miles of HOV lanes in the 1990s. Each freeway that had its fast lane converted to an HOV lane had a mixed flow lane added in its place.
By no stretch of the imagination does it sound easy.
Agreed. Branching off of the existing Red/Purple Line, no matter how you cut it, would not be easy. You have to wonder why the Red Line planners didn't think of this...
But wait! They did! Once upon a time, the dream was to have heavy rail lines reaching to every corner of the county. The Downtown LA-North Hollywood Metro Rail line was to be merely the starter line of a much larger system.
In 1982, it was therefore recommended that the Metro Rail line through downtown along Hill Street be built as two-level stations (a la present-day Wilshire/Vermont station) to allow for easy future branch line construction.
As you can see above, two "future alignments" would have been allowed:
"South Los Angeles extends service south from the Central Business District along Vermont to the vicinity of Pacific Coast Highway and then east to the Long Beach area" "Burbank/Glendale extends service...to the Glendale/Burbank area"
(Check a 1980 Prop A map to see what that might have looked like.)
The two-level concept unfortunately disappeared later that year: "In view of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's recent decision to continue planning for a light rail transit line in the south central corridor, future provisions for rapid transit may not be necessary." Hello Blue Line, goodbye easy subway extensions (and goodbye easy Whittier Subway)!
« Last Edit: Nov 18, 2009, 5:57am by Justin Walker »
An extension if the redline down the el Monte Busway is also pictured, it was for a senior project. I'll post a better pic later, but this gives a better iidea of my alignment idea.
Not even a mention in your article? I know I havent been around for some time, but dang! haha Just messin with you, its nice to see this concept taking flight amongst members of the TC. I have not been around, working and elacamp as well as 3 boys taking up my time, plus the wifey isnt permissive of me taking 3 hours to post my transit ideas.
Either way, both the El Monte HOV conversion as well as the whittier purple line extension have been in the halls of the MTA library for decades now. When I began touting them both as the best way to create comprehensive and pragmatic eastside rail coverage about a half decade back (along with the esgl taking the 60 corridor and randolph street row for the se cities), all I really did was make a few tweaks to exisiting ideas to fit into current development and ridership concentrations.
I dont want to act like an egomaniac, especially since I made not a penny and swallowed much flack, but it feels REALLY good to see my concepts and ideas coming to fruition, on several things: -I made comments about esgl alignment around Lorena/1st/Indiana/3rd on this board over a half decade back, as well at numerous scoping meetings and letters/calls to the MTA. I even noted the half century pilgramage between el mercadito-la gloria and the tamaleria/party store across 1st -I noted how the esgl shouldve run straight south from UnStation rather than that curve to alameda 5 years ago, including noting how that extra space would give room for portal to connect to the DTconnector -the stations between Ford and Atlantic are too close, dimishing travel time -the major travel route most eastsiders take into DTLA is more south, in the historic core where busses all meet, this will affect ridership much like how the goldline has trouble grabbing all the Fig bus riders from NELA
If you go back to p1 where i posted these maps, i also discussed issues of intricate detail with these concepts, and the esgl.
It really bothered me to talk to people/mta/consultants and be treated like I was some gadfly marking lines on a map (of course thats how we all start, that and a headache from a 45 minute bus stop experience!) when i very diligently looked at these concepts thoroughly before concluding. It is still bittersweet to see things I dang told people incessantly now creating problems with our built projects, and it is downright appalling to see many of those comments about future endevours still being ignored. My senior thesis in urban planning was on the EM busway HRT conversion and Purple line whittier extension, complete with renderings and a sketchup model, Jerard saw the hard copy years ago and hopefully I can make it to a meeting to show any TC members interested.
Here are some of those observations and a few new ones I picked up onthe way: ESGL 1 & 2 - The Atl station should have been on the east side of the boulevard to make more distance between it and CC station. Plus Atlantic bl is designated as a mini highway, I dont even know if an at-grade crossing is legally feasable. The Atl/Pomona intersection is jam packed all day, even if it is legal putting an LRT crossing every 6-12 minutes would be absurd and inconceivable. Atl at this point holds the only 60 freeway offramp, and handles a huge amount of traffic as well is quite dense. I dont know how the train will cross atl in anything but an el configuration, meaning station rebuild as well. -In a perfect world the hairy S curve wouldve been at least a trench. It can stil be done, except an at-grade crossing would probably still stay at Lorena and crossing gates would be needed to maintain speed. East of Lorena the ROW merely stays level while the hill rises going into the tunnel and allowing for a mid block ped crossing between the mercadito and tamaleria, half century safety hazard left unfixef by a negligent city solved as well. The trenched row would curve southeast to run behond the building on the SW corner of Indiana/1st, mitigating any traffic interaction with the train. There is enough room for a protal just east of indiana in the several dozen yards between this conceptual portal and the station. i was scared of the 3rd/indi crossing but was pleasantly suprised by how the MTA pulled it off, all that is needed is auto crossing gates. -The cost estimates for the SR-60 route for phase 2 are absurdly and unecessarilly high. The MTA has proposed putting the train in an el config along an elevated freeway which is redundant. take a cue from the 10 fwy widening thru El Monte for the carpool lane extension and widen the southern edge of the 60 fwy by 25 feet. The slope along the fwy has more than enough room for this widening and it will be MUCH cheaper than a total elevated alignment for the 2 miles between Sadler and Vail. The soundwall wil have to be moved though, but this is a tremendous opprtunity to cut costs and give us elevated rail using prexisting infrastructure. the main cost would be 5 small bridges over crossing roads, other wise the grade sepeartion is already there.
The train can also be at-grade if it is placed on that landscaping area between the Montebello Town Center and the 60, taking another .75 miles of elevated and cutting costs. I would also note what an excellent opportunity this station will be to create a dense TOD community on the expansive parking lots as well as serve southside montebello and south sangabe with shuttles as they are so close.
Same goes for the supposed el config along whittier narrows from san gabriel bl to SElMonte HS. The MTA is calling for a total elevated alignment in an area with no density and little crossings. If the train made slight curves at freeway offramps, but kept on the southside of the 60 alignments and had crossing gates this 2-3 miles of elevated would be at-grade. El is unecessary here, and a waste of money. Lets put grade seperations where people are. I would guestimate these 2 ideas would shave over 4.5-600 million off the cost easilly, making it much more FTA fund viable.
The washington alignment is a bad idea, unless youre from south pico or los nietos. the worst part is that the randolph st PE row is a mile south of washington, why build el in a trucking zone when you have the row grade seperate nearby? This ROW should really be a spur of the blueline from the slauson station thru the SE cities, but thats another discussion.
On the HOV redline conversion to El Monte -This is a no-brainer, the major costs would be the portal to rise from just east of union station to the at grade running alignment, bridges at Chavez, CSLA-710, and to get into the EM transit center from baldwin. Otherwise it is laying down track on the far right portion of the HOV lane and building stations. The HOV lane only needs to be pushed onto that extra buffer area now seperating the HOV lanes from normal traffic, which runs for 8-9 miles. Lots of money savings there.
The stations would require some investment, building multiple bridges to span the on/offramps and connect to the adjoining neighborhoods and activity centers on both ends of the stations. that would create better access to Garvey/Valley as well as use the extensive HRT station length to reach 2 major streets in one station (for instance Atlantic-Garfield, Del Mar/ San Gabriel bl). The stations should also be completely enclosed with clear doors only opening in sync with train doors when they come in to mitigate freeway noise and wind. they do this in Asia, Europe and Latin America and I think it would work for this and many existing freeway rail stations in LA.
The valley-garvey busses are packed all day long in a super congested corridor, they areas surrounding much of this alignment are fairly dense and full of working class latinos and asians more conducive to riding public transit. Plus they were built around the old PE train that ran down this row, and are naturally able to connect peds to the close major corridors and areas quite easilly if you walk the community. the current busway doesnt have one stop between csla and el monte, missing a perfect opportunity to service high ridership communities. -In a perfect world Asian investment would fund high rise developments sitting above the freeway on-offramps that are integrated into the 4 bridges radiating out from each station. This would better acclimate the pedestrian from station to street, and can also mitigate freeway noise and pollution with 6-8 story walls of development.
The purpleline conversion to Whittier -Dr Alpern is absolutely right, we need a county sup more willing to champion a cause in the name of transit equity (if the westside can have at least 2-3 rail line worthy corridors, than the area connecting LA to the rest of the nation and socal can have several as well) rather than nonstop complaints. I have tried to get a meeting with the Sup's transportation deputey, but have not been lucky or diligent enough to do so. i am only a trained transit advocate who grew up on the bus and is a constituent, the deputy has better things to do so far from my experience.
The eastside is clogged by so many freeway because it is the gateway between central and downtown LA and the 2 million person SGV, the 3 million person IE, the OC and the rest of the country. That alone should cease the whole "the eastside has a train but the WS doesnt, no fair" ideology, altho the wilshire subway should be a priority), and every freeway and arterial E-W street is clogged during rush hour to show it. ken is correct that viewing rail service as an alernative to cars, and since so should match major congestion patterns-freeways to be comprehensive. He is also correct to asser that the 7th metro to 7th configuration would fill a major hole in transit coverage for central LA as well as help revitalize the olde rneglected portion of downtown that is also a major destination for most of LAs working class who will take this train. The train could service South Broadway and the Fashion District in one station, skid row and the SE dtla area in another (including the greyhound station, fruit market, and nearby artists area), and go elevated just east of San Pedro cutting down costs immensely. It would onyl require less than 1.1 miles of new subway from 7th station to east of San Pedro, 2.5 miles of el from San Pedro to the LA River and then down to the portal into Boyle Hts. That would take the purple line from 7th to Soto/Olympic in under 800 million, a small cost for such a crucial gap and insurance that a rail ine connecting the working class latino heavy eastside to the destinations most working class latinos have gone to in dtla for over half a century is covered. This transit gap, along with wilshire, the SF valley to purpleline via 405 and Vermont avenue hrt; is one of the most crucial to adequately covering a huge travel pattern and a large swath of the city-county where it is needed most.
Once the alignment hits the LA river it can veer south along the river a tiny nit to then run under the olympic bridge and have a station at soto. This area is next to the dense wyvenwood and estrada courts housing complexes, a potential development at the Sears and lots of new housing potential. The train would then go directly east to hit Whittier blvd at Lorena (with a possible stop) a station at Indiana-Eastman, Ford-Arizona, Atlantic-Goodrich, and Garfield-concourse.
Because Pico-whitter cities area so far away, it would be best to have them served by the fastest rail service, which is why in aperfect world a 7th-whittier hrt is much more preferable to slower lrt. East of garfield the train can go elevated, but that may not be politically feasable due to the myopic cbehavior of local politicos and their retial revenue cash cow. Why on earth anyone would block a rail line hitting the historic and most dense part of your city (which needs revitalization and has the pt dependant riders) to save a dirt path and some bushes still astounds me, talk about myopic provincialism.
My wife is now leering at me, as i cooked about 60 taquitos, beans rice and veggies for my family for dinner while writing this. I can elaborate later, I miss this forum and have to get back to TC meetings.
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #218 on Nov 25, 2009, 1:43am »
Art, you could NEVER be chopped liver! You're one of the key "thought leaders" of the Eastside who encouraged me to ask Jeremy and others to come up with their maps.
I think your ideas bear a whole lotta merit, but will bear a lot more fruit with Sup. Molina's successor (I wish I could sing a different tune, here).
So whatever the EGL planners lean towards for a Phase 2, I hope you're part of that effort (I favor the SR60 route out of default), and that you're part of the effort to get the NEXT Eastside rail line.
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #219 on Nov 27, 2009, 10:39am »
You can get ridership by building two ridiculously short branches of the Eastside Line. The first branch heads down Atlantic and serves Whittier Blvd. 9/10s of a mile. The second branch goes up Atlantic and serves East L.A. College. 1/2 of a mile. Two huge ridership generators, 1-1/2 miles total.
I believe we are stuck in a mentality of building freeways. We are using light rail as long-distance commuter rail, like freeways, where it doesn't count unless it's at least 6 miles long. This is why, to me, the 60 Fwy corridor is absurd. For some reason, little high-value branches like I suggested don't even occur to Angelenos.
There are two huge generators of ridership, each less than a mile of the current terminus. So why build a line that bypasses these obvious targets, and instead runs long distance out a comparatively empty corridor, to suburban Whittier?
« Last Edit: Nov 27, 2009, 10:46am by metrocenter »
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #220 on Nov 27, 2009, 12:17pm »
Why? I don't accept the premise of the question. Both of those locations have feeder bus lines that connect with the Gold Line Atlantic station. I love a train as much as the next guy who posts here, but how does building a 1/2-mile LRT line make financial sense? "Ridiculously short", indeed.
Joined: Jun 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 200 Location: Silverlake
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #221 on Nov 27, 2009, 12:31pm »
I've always thought that Atlantic blvd. or parallel to it or the 710(is there an old ROW anywhere?) is in dire need of an entire rail line of it's own. It is such a busy street and area. Maybe it could hook up to the Blue Line. Just a thought.
Re: Extension to Whittier study corridor « Reply #222 on Nov 28, 2009, 1:30am »
Fortunately, this line is waaaaaay behind other lines like the Downtown Connector and the Crenshaw Corridor and the Wilshire Subway which all make lots of sense and which enjoy much more consensus.
The Eastside is still "drawing lines" on a map without a true understanding of quality planning and corresponding ridership. Metrolink, the need for an Eastside HRT to serve the Whittier corridor more directly, and other projects all need to correspond together.
Again, I believe that the 60 freeway corridor is a more exact way to encourage fast, high ridership in as short a time as possible by travelling on the shoulder, not the median of that freeway in a corridor that's growing faster than other regions of the nearby Eastside with respect to density.
That said, this is only a part of what needs to be a bigger, more planned out network. It took twenty years for the Westside and Mid-City to figure out what it needs: Expo, Crenshaw, Wilshire, Green Line extensions and Downtown Connector.
Methinks it'll take another 20 years for the Eastside to figure out what sort of rail network it wants and needs. To my pea-sized brain, the 60 corridor extension is just the safest part to start that rail network.
I'm more bullish at this time on how to UPGRADE METROLINK and to START OVER WITH AN EASTSIDE HRT TO WHITTIER than I am extending the Eastside Gold Line LRT, but if the powers that be want to choose a single corridor in which to spend $1 billion...
Why? I don't accept the premise of the question. Both of those locations have feeder bus lines that connect with the Gold Line Atlantic station. I love a train as much as the next guy who posts here, but how does building a 1/2-mile LRT line make financial sense? "Ridiculously short", indeed.
I guess I didn't explain this well enough. I'm not suggesting a 1/2 mile rail line. I'm suggesting you have two terminuses for the Gold Line: one at Whittier Blvd., and one at East L.A. College. They would share most of the line, except for the little extensions to the revenue generating locations.
It doesn't make sense to wait at ELAC for a 'feeder bus' just to get to the Gold Line. If you have to do that, you might as well drive to school. OTOH, if you can get on the train at Chavez/Atlantic and ride all the way home, to say Highland Park or Little Tokyo - then it makes sense.
The point is: look at Boston, and NYC, and London, etc. Rail lines in these cities typically have several termini and branches, each of which share a trunk line. That's what we should think about: not just extending the length of each line, but how to make each line the most useful.
« Last Edit: Nov 29, 2009, 2:09am by metrocenter »
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[image]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/4059390523_58f5dc63dd.jpg)
Logged![[aim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/nationaltc/Pics/KennethAlpern.gif)
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/bdowns/avatars/phillies_logo_p.gif){kind=logo}
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/images/maps/by_train2.gif)
![[image]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/4113816085_0b90ec56b8_b.jpg)
![[image]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/4113816041_d71e152e17_b.jpg)
![[image]](ftp://<img src="http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg104/adikonda/MapUjo.jpg" alt="image " border="0"/><br/>)
