|
Post by metrocenter on May 28, 2008 8:28:52 GMT -8
I'm no engineer, so I'm sure I'm missing something. But IMO, the ideal solution is to put the entire wye underground. The new Eastside and Pasadena tracks would be directly below First and Alameda streets, i.e., to the south and west of the existing tracks.
There would be portals at First/Hewitt and just south of Alameda/Temple. The station would have three platforms (one for each destination), on the outside of the wye. The platforms would be connected by a mezzanine.
Is this impractical/unfeasible? If so, then why? I just don't see why the entire intersection, not to mention an entire block, needs to be destroyed just to build this station. Surely there's precedent for this sort of thing (?).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 28, 2008 8:39:12 GMT -8
at this point, I'm starting to wonder if they're deliberately trying to make this as hard as possible. then we all throw up our hands in disgust/ despair and the NIMBY lemmings all rush towards the at-grade option.
otherwise, they could have chosen alternative 6, which if I'm remembering right, would have been pretty close to the the scenario that metrocenter's suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 28, 2008 10:01:12 GMT -8
I'm no engineer, so I'm sure I'm missing something. But IMO, the ideal solution is to put the entire wye underground. The new Eastside and Pasadena tracks would be directly below First and Alameda streets, i.e., to the south and west of the existing tracks. That would be a great solution if the under construction East LA Gold Line was built this way but because of the at-grade alignment and most of that work is close to completion it could make it difficult to have to reconfigure it to those specifics. One other idea I thought about with the East LA branch is that the Regional Connector tunnel could be extended east for 0.55 miles to tie into the Boyle Heights tunnel so that there's a full tunnel from Lorena all the way to Downtown. The First/Hewitt portal would require a second widening of First Street with very little room to build the existing operational at-grade tracks AND build a new portal. Temple/Alameda would essentially eliminate the currently under construction Little Tokyo station to build the portal because the incline to the 101 Flyover bridge starts right at Temple/Alameda. Politically that would be a non-starter considering how soon this might be built. If it's within 5-8 years then that would be an extreme non-starter. But this would still require the construction of the entire intersection and will require a lot more of the construction since we'd have to build it on two levels. Underground wyes should only be used for a single track direction. In this case when including the mezzanine we will have 3 levels under the First/Alameda intersection compared to only one level to simply depress Alameda Street between Temple and Second at a good incline, compared to the max incline of the LRV's of 6%. In total when including the elevated pedestrian walkways would still be three levels, two of them will be at or above grade. Now another thing that dawned on me with this design is that there is a possiblity of digging into (state or federal) highway money to build this portion of the project. Why is that important, highway money towards transit means another funding source to improve the likelyhood of this getting built as soon as possible. Nothing is ever unfeasible...if you have a lot of money to spend on it. But with limited funds and a competative grant process with the State and Feds this design is a feasible option compared to the tight acute angled turn at Temple/Alameda then from making the tight slow turn to go directly up an incline to the 101 bridge.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 28, 2008 10:37:33 GMT -8
I found the 1st & Alameda proposal quite ingenious when I first heard about it from Ray Sosa at a public workshop. Ray said traffic on Alameda is already an impact on the new residential at 1st.
Depressing Alameda's through lanes both helps traffic and facilitates the rail extension without tearing out the new Eastside Gold Line. And it's reasonably easy to build while maintaining existing traffic flow.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 28, 2008 11:10:58 GMT -8
Temple/Alameda would essentially eliminate the currently under construction Little Tokyo station to build the portal because the incline to the 101 Flyover bridge starts right at Temple/Alameda. Politically that would be a non-starter considering how soon this might be built. If it's within 5-8 years then that would be an extreme non-starter. although I have been a huge fan of the Little Tokyo station, and I can't wait for it to open, I would hope that people wouldn't treat the 1st/Alameda location like some sort of holy relic. getting the connector built will require some sort of sacrifice no matter how it gets built. and if the 1st/Alameda crossing can get built in a better way, then we should push for that better way, even if it means moving the Little Tokyo station to a different location (maybe even a better location?) and having a detour of some sort while they build the portals. at the very least, they could start the tunneling from the 7th/Metro end and hold off on disrupting 1st/Alameda as long as possible. of course, it is quite likely that the proposed wye will work out fine and it is starting to sound as if it can be built in such a way that the Eastside Line won't be harmed too badly (or even at all). this isn't so much a critique on the wye, rather I just hate this idea that once a station gets built, it becomes untouchable
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 28, 2008 11:34:52 GMT -8
^ I would agree with that notion, of finding the better way to do it, but I would look at it in this aspect.
Had that station been there for 15-20 years then it makes it easier to replace the at grade station and had that station been designed from the beginning as a temporary wooden plank platform then it would make sense to replace it because the lifecycle on a station like that is about 5-10 years, but the fact is that they just built that station and maybe within 5-10 years they'll start building something new where they can built it right from the start.
Its one of the reasons why they accelerated the Phase 2 Venice/Culver Jct. station as an elevated rather than build a temporary station for the Culver City end for Phase 1.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 28, 2008 17:43:38 GMT -8
...and only TODAY are we at the point where the mindset of building it right the first time, for the long haul, is how we're doing things. When the Pasadena and Eastside Gold Lines were approved and built, it was by far a much more tenuous era for mass transit.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 28, 2008 17:44:52 GMT -8
...and we're actually at the point where we might be able to justify a $300 million betterment for the line should the undergrounding of part or all of the shared portion of the Blue and Expo Lines might be open for discussion sooner and not later.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 29, 2008 15:30:50 GMT -8
Darrell: ;D Looking at the picture from the overhead view, I see the westbound and the eastbound traffic going under the trains! So, it is my conclusion from the drawing that the intersection is tri-level. Are you OK with that? SINCERELY THE ROADTRAINER
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 30, 2008 22:38:58 GMT -8
...and we're actually at the point where we might be able to justify a $300 million betterment for the line should the undergrounding of part or all of the shared portion of the Blue and Expo Lines might be open for discussion sooner and not later. Of course we can start discussing of this now. But one betterment that should be accomodated from day one at the Pico/Chick Hearn Station is adding a second platform to handle the larger loads.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 30, 2008 23:46:00 GMT -8
Darrell: ;D Looking at the picture from the overhead view, I see the westbound and the eastbound traffic going under the trains! So, it is my conclusion from the drawing that the intersection is tri-level. Are you OK with that? SINCERELY THE ROADTRAINER Between the two illustrations I only see two levels: the Alameda underpass and everything else. They colored the tracks crossing 1st Street a lighter gray, but I think they're at the same level as 1st Street.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 2, 2008 7:01:24 GMT -8
To answer Roadtrainers questions, I've placed them within his post: This question begs a beginner explanation of how things work. First, you need money, an on-going source of funds to get things done. Caltrans is funded out of a much bigger "Road Pot", than the Los Angeles County 1% sales tax. So, if you are just making ends meet, you can't afford big ticket Multi-Billion Dollar projects. Just changing agencies doesn't change anything. Caltrans has a Division of Rail. This group runs the LOSSAN (San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo), Capitol Corridor CCJPB (San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn), San Joaquin SJVRC (LA-Bakersfield-Sacramento-Oakland), and the new Coast Corridor CCRC (San Francisco-San Luis Obispo-Los Angeles) rail corridors. Caltrans has an engineering group know as the PECG or Professional Engineers in California Group. It is not known for delivering projects rapidly. In fact, currently Metro is the Model that PECG could really learn from. As far as your thinking? It really needs adjustment. Having been at a number of Caltrans meetings dealing with the 405 / 101 corridors, be rest assured that Neighbors turn out in full force. Like in the 1,000's rather than the dozens that turn out against Expo. By the 1970's, freeway building changed in California. Perhaps you've heard of the Century Freeway? The settlement included an HOV Lane and a Light Rail Line to get that one out of the courts after decades of delay. And how about the Foothill South 241 Toll Road? 10,000 people showed up at a meeting to protest it? (little or no resistance from the nimby's? ?) Just a few weeks ago, hundreds were at a meeting for fixing the 405 to 101 transition ramp. Again, a contentious issue, that could face years worth of lawsuits. And Caltrans hasn't even identified a source of funds to build this project. Now, as far as BRU and Fix-Expo go, BRU only became powerful due to stupidity of Mayor Richard Riordan who led the MTA Board to sign the Consent Decree rather than taking the case to court. Bear in mind that many of Riordan's key advisers are/were members of the Reason Foundation, the ExxonMobil highway / tolling support fringe group that hates mass transit and wants you to have "Freedom of the Roads". Sadly, groups like TTC were not around at the time to go after the stupid thinking of the 1990's that defined MTA. Now, as far as Fix Expo goes, it is a citizen group that has a good crack as any to cause trouble on the Expo project, or to get its objectives met or listened to. But, this is just how things work in a Democracy. If you wanted, you could find a cause of action and start suing these Expo guys. You don't need anyone's permission, just a nice bankroll to pay others to sue, or like some of the activists who are willing to learn the legal system, you can sue with just tenacity and a lot of midnight oil reading the rules, law books and court decisions. That is how RobertArkow is fighting Metrolink. Bart Reed
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 2, 2008 8:36:12 GMT -8
Caltrans gets lots of resistance from NIMBY's. Look at the 710 extension which still hasn't been built 30 years later. And who is Jerald Wright?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 2, 2008 9:07:40 GMT -8
And who is Jerald Wright? Well, the last time I looked, Jerard Wright was the Vice President of The Transit Coalition, the Chair of the Westside / Central Metro Sector Governance Council and the guy who produced the PowerPoint that Metro used to get the Downtown Regional Connector from an idea to a funded planning study, that is well underway. And the guy is hardly past 25 years old.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 2, 2008 9:46:27 GMT -8
^ The point was his name was misspelled.
roadtrainer, I'm unclear: are you responding to your own post?
Bart Reed writes: Sorry gang, can't seem to pick up the typos like Jerald vs. Jerard. We do encourage you all to use the "Spell Check" button. And, for Roadtrainer, the "Preview" button is really a useful tool, that can help address a lot of unclear issues.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 2, 2008 15:50:51 GMT -8
Metrocenter asks: Guys the spell checker doesn't always catch the words or maybe to Be honest with you all I'm not the best typist! Sincerely the Road Trainer
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 16, 2008 22:45:03 GMT -8
Copied from the "Freeway medians still the best option for westside" thread: Darrell how are you calculating your times for expo? Rather than overall average speed I'm using comparable existing timetable segments. Metro rounds to whole minutes - we're not talking rocket science here! If you look at the operator's speedometer, you realize there's slack in the schedule. My base case is stations one mile apart on subway or at-grade right-of-way with gated crossings at 55 mph, 2 minutes. Cut that to a half mile without tight turns, 1 minute. Two miles between stations, 3 minutes. A worst-case examples for street running at 35 mph is the Blue Line from Pico to Grand, 0.7 miles including one tight turn and potential signal delay at Pico, Venice, and Washington, 3 minutes. For my Expo Line street running with signal priority and stations one mile apart I used a range of 3-4 minutes to include signal delay. Here's my estimated Regional Connector Alternative 5 timetable. Comments? Distances are short between stations, but there are tight turns and the intersection at 1st and Alameda. Stations | Miles | Minutes | 7th & Flower | | | 5th & Flower | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Hope | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Spring | 0.4 | 1 | 1st & Alameda | 0.6 | 1-2 | Union Station | 0.5 | 1-2 | Total | 2.1 | 5-7 |
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 16, 2008 22:47:44 GMT -8
;D Why all the arguments about the headway? Just get me there safe and sound, without accident or incident! Sincerely the Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 17, 2008 7:29:52 GMT -8
Suppose the Second Street subway alignment is chosen. It seems to me that, at a minimum, at least one passing track or siding should be built into the straight Second Street section.
Any thoughts? Is the MTA staff even considering the possibility of an extra tunnel, passing tracks or sidings?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 17, 2008 23:33:26 GMT -8
Rather than overall average speed I'm using comparable existing timetable segments. Metro rounds to whole minutes - we're not talking rocket science here! If you look at the operator's speedometer, you realize there's slack in the schedule. My base case is stations one mile apart on subway or at-grade right-of-way with gated crossings at 55 mph, 2 minutes. Cut that to a half mile without tight turns, 1 minute. Two miles between stations, 3 minutes. That's a great rule of thumb and it also highlights how stop spacing effects grade separation. Because if the line is grade separated but stops very frequently, it shows that grade separation is more used for capacity rather than speed. Here's my estimated Regional Connector Alternative 5 timetable. Comments? Distances are short between stations, but there are tight turns and the intersection at 1st and Alameda. Stations | Miles | Minutes | 7th & Flower | | | 5th & Flower | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Hope | 0.3 | 1 | 2nd & Spring | 0.4 | 1 | 1st & Alameda | 0.6 | 1-2 | Union Station | 0.5 | 2-3 |
[/color][tr][td] Total[/td] [td] 2.1[/td] [td] 6-8[/td] [/tr] [/table] [/quote] One observation to make, on the MIS/EIR for the East LA Gold Line they have an operating time between Union Station and 1st/Alameda as 3 minutes, mostly due to the two tight 15-20mph curves after the 101 Freeway bridge. However, I believe that number can be balanced out from the south end between Pico and 7th Street due to the fact that now there's a 10-15 mph faster operating speed between those two points because trains will no longer end and wait on the tracks, they'll operate through. Suppose the Second Street subway alignment is chosen. It seems to me that, at a minimum, at least one passing track or siding should be built into the straight Second Street section. Any thoughts? Is the MTA staff even considering the possibility of an extra tunnel, passing tracks or sidings? I've sent this sketch in as an idea for such an added passing track feel free to copy it and use it in your questions and letters to the Regional Connector team for future train turnbacks and as a storage spot of trains that may break down in the tunnel during rush hour. There's an added bonus to this three track segment if it has a significant length to hold 2 3 car LRV trains between 7th Street Metro Center and the Central Library Station it will improve operational speeds and provide space for train shortlines. I use Embarcadero Muni Metro Station ( EML and EMR on image below)between the Embracadero Portal and the station as a reference to highlight this point, that is the indigo box.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 18, 2008 7:54:52 GMT -8
Thanks for the link and info. I was thinking more of a long track that could be used for express service. Something like this.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 18, 2008 8:13:33 GMT -8
Oh I see. The one small issue is how this tunnel is built if it's all cut-cover tunnel I wouldn't see why not. However the street width of Second Street isn't wide enough to hold platforms and three tracks without taking large portions of the sidewalk along the entire stretch.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 21, 2008 13:26:47 GMT -8
A 4 track DTC can be created at minimal additional cost by simply using one large bore tunnel (as opposed to smaller twin tunnels), and building cut-and-cover stations with platforms on two levels. From the D.C. Tyson's Tunnel effort:
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 21, 2008 15:22:40 GMT -8
Where's the space to build the two cut-cover stations on Second Street where this cross section is suppose to take place? We could have the both routes go in separate levels but that would make the area difficult to execute this design. Can we take the Caltrans "plaza" land to build one set of side platforms and then knock out St.Vibiana's to build the other side platform? We could use the Park/Plaza area for the new LAPD HQ and knockout the Higgins building to build that other platform?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 28, 2008 4:21:33 GMT -8
Jerard, thanks for posting the Muni Metro diagram.
When I visited San Francisco in January, I had wondered what happens to the non-N and T trains at Embarcadero, since they stay underground. Now I think I understand.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 28, 2008 5:10:42 GMT -8
Where's the space to build the two cut-cover stations on Second Street where this cross section is suppose to take place? We could have the both routes go in separate levels but that would make the area difficult to execute this design. Can we take the Caltrans "plaza" land to build one set of side platforms and then knock out St.Vibiana's to build the other side platform? We could use the Park/Plaza area for the new LAPD HQ and knockout the Higgins building to build that other platform? Anyone have an overhead satellite image of the possible station locations?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 28, 2008 7:36:05 GMT -8
From the D.C. Tyson's Tunnel effort: One of the apparent benefits of separate tunnels is emergency evacuation of passengers to the other tunnel. How does the Tyson's proposal address that? A single tunnel sure is how they used to do it. One need go no further than LA's original Pacific Electric subway tunnel for multiple tracks sharing a tunnel. See Elson Trinidad's 2000 photos.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 28, 2008 18:40:31 GMT -8
One of the apparent benefits of separate tunnels is emergency evacuation of passengers to the other tunnel. How does the Tyson's proposal address that? Probably the same way it's handled in every cut-and-cover tunnel in the world.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 29, 2008 8:21:03 GMT -8
Probably the same way it's handled in every cut-and-cover tunnel in the world. Or not, as the United States' safety standards exceed many other countries'. Nor are there very many recently built (within the last 30 years) light rail cut-and-cover tunnels (as opposed to bored tunnels or simple underpasses) in the United States. Here are all the ones I'm aware of; feel free to add. Los Angeles Blue Line downtown - .5 mile Pasadena Gold Line downtown - .2 mile San Diego State University - .6 mileBuffalo - 1.6 milesSan Diego's tunnel has a center divider.
|
|