|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 28, 2014 13:04:33 GMT -8
Bob, I envy the fact that you got to see/use the former system. I think it's great the Foothill Extension will allow you to somewhat relive those days. It won't be Olive Av. in Monrovia, but it's close. I never got to ride the PE Whittier/La Habra-Yorba Linda-Fullerton or the LARy J Line. All I have are stories and the pictures from the pacificelectric.org website for perspective and insight. Yet like you, I await the day of riding MOS #1 (to the Green Line) of the WSAB/PEROW--I'll be waiting 10+ years though. As for the MOS #2 (to the LAC/OC border), that will come later. MOS #3 (to Santa Ana)...well, I won't hold my breath. Please excuse my profanity, but Orange County just has a way of shitting all over these things. Can we say Center Line project?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 28, 2014 14:23:01 GMT -8
I've commented on this before: one of the handicaps under which public transit operates is the various "authorities" and "agencies" being confined to their own political subdivisions. There are exceptions; as I recall Omnitrans, the San Bernardino system has a line that comes into LA, and there used to be Orange County buses that also went into LA County. On the other hand, I can pack my bags, hop into my car, and head east until I get to the Atlantic Ocean, stopping wherever I choose and following an almost infinite variety of routes. Getting back to Orange County, as I recall they were planning a major upgrade to Metrolink service, but it would only run to the OC/LA county line, making it useless for a large number of commuters. I don't follow events "down there" that closely, but I think their "powers that be" were, and maybe still are mostly "old white guys" who grew up in the days of 25 cents a gallon gasoline.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 3, 2014 19:49:09 GMT -8
Wow! I didn't think this discussion was going to go any further than what Alex posted; and thank you for the video clip! I've been "dinged" in the past for resurrecting this poor forsaken tunnel topic. I was bluntly told once "Stop it! There's no current political backing for using it whatsoever!" Perhaps that's true. However, there is a reason I brought it up. If the tunnel is intact from the Subway Terminal to Flower St. where the Regional Connector is going to be tunneled/trenched, why is Metro passing up an opportunity to acquire and use the Subway Terminal as a LRV storage? If there's one thing I've learned from this message board over the years is that you cannot have too many LRV storage facilities! That is very true, however once the long pocket track between Bunker Hill and 7th Street Metro Center is operating that will help in emergencies and for rush-hour operations also there's an existing yard just north of the Chinatown station that will be a very important strategic location for midday trains to be stored once the Regional Connector opens. What about trains to Pasadena? |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 3, 2014 19:51:29 GMT -8
I am all for discussing this, I just happen to disagree that the tunnel is needed or very useful. It *always* comes down to cost vs. benefit. gatewaygent, the benefit of your suggestion is clear: storage tracks for LRVs would be a great thing to have in Downtown LA. The costs, would include: shoring up the old tunnel to modern seismic and technical standards, and integrating the old tunnel into the new tunnel. These costs might not be too great. I wonder if the FEIR would need to be revised? Interestingly, the FEIR LPA drawing ( see here, page 6) shows that the old tunnel is almost perfectly lined up with the new tunnel. This means that technically, it seems like it could be done. However, a junction would need to be created, connecting the old tunnel and tracks to the new tunnel and tracks. This would require creation of one or two curved tunnel sections to the east of Flower Street (under Citicorp Plaza). And, a significant amount of space would be needed under Flower Street for the new junction trackwork. This section of Flower Street is already slated for a pocket track (triple track), so I wonder how this could be done.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 4, 2014 10:20:37 GMT -8
Don't demolish the YMCA ... I just joined! Just kidding, tear it down, it's an ugly building, mostly parking structure. BTW, thanks Jerard for clarifying the location of the tunnel. Do we know for sure that the foundation for 400 South Hope (labeled in your picture as "Mellon Bank") is not blocking the tunnel? |
|
|
|
Post by skater on Mar 4, 2014 13:14:36 GMT -8
If the subway terminal building were to be used for LRV storage, it may as well be used as a station and endpoint of short line trains to downtown. and connect it to the Pershing Square Subway station. It would be awesome to have the historic terminal be a destination for some short line trains.... and once again there would be trains with "SUBWAY TERMINAL" as a destination! though porbabaly a short line destination of Union Station may make more logistic sense, this would be very awesome. Although this idea is very far off and a longshot, nothing should be done that would entirely preclude this....
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 5, 2014 13:51:23 GMT -8
Well as soon as utilities are relocated, the first step of construction will be to install soldier piles. Any decision to make use of the old tunnel would need to happen before installation of the the soldier piles, which will otherwise block off any possible connection between the tunnels. This video explains the process. At 2:28 the piles are installed at the location of the old tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by skater on Mar 5, 2014 16:15:13 GMT -8
Well as soon as utilities are relocated, the first step of construction will be to install soldier piles. Any decision to make use of the old tunnel would need to happen before installation of the the soldier piles, which will otherwise block off any possible connection between the tunnels. This video explains the process. At 2:28 the piles are installed at the location of the old tunnel. well I guess this is ruled out at least for now, but it seems that as long as nothing too big gets built were the building that would need to be demolished is or nothing blocks the tunnel like the bonaventure did, then it could be possible to do use the subway terminal in the future... ... it would be a much more awesome place to terminate some of the short line, and as I understand it these wont terminate at union station but at 7th street. And my educated guess is the short line will terminate at 7th Street Metro Center instead Union Station due to the pocket track that will be constructed between 4th St and 6 St. That's the most logical place to turn the train to go back to Long Beach. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 5, 2014 16:49:48 GMT -8
In theory, I like the idea of using the tunnel, as well as connecting it to Pershing Square - I didn't realize the tunnel ended so close to that station. You could also put a station at 4th/Flower to connect with the Gold/Expo lines (whenever the Regional Connector gets around to adding a station there).
The real question though is, where do you run it?
Glendale? Good idea in theory, though this route largely replicates the 92 bus (which itself replicates the former P.E. Glendale line), which I don't believe is one of Metro's stars as far as ridership goes.
Silver Lake/Echo Park? Perhaps if the tunnel could be extended north up Figueroa, it could become a future Sunset/Santa Monica Blvd. line (sort of replicating the Silver Line concept).
Of those two options, the second one sounds better - though probably too costly to construct.
|
|
