|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 17, 2015 11:39:00 GMT -8
Impressive, they're proposing two new stations, nice.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 17, 2015 12:13:15 GMT -8
This is the money quote... basically, Metro will have to construct a new revenue terminus beyond Union Station anyway to support higher Purple line frequency so service to Arts District is a forgone conclusion. Services to 6th Street is not required for the future frequency upgrade but it's likely so low cost (just need a center platform) that it can be accomplished with very little funds.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 17, 2015 12:44:57 GMT -8
This is the money quote... basically, Metro will have to construct a new revenue terminus beyond Union Station anyway to support higher Purple line frequency so service to Arts District is a forgone conclusion. Services to 6th Street is not required for the future frequency upgrade but it's likely so low cost (just need a center platform) that it can be accomplished with very little funds. Makes sense since Union Station was never meant to be a terminus station and if they have to construct a turn back facility for the train cars in the Yard, you might as well build a platform or two along the way for additional revenue service. The stations won't be heavily used most likely, but there is little operational cost to constructing them and not much capital cost for an above ground station.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 17, 2015 13:11:38 GMT -8
Now I'm wondering if there may in fact be any possibility of continuing the Purple Line through the Alhambra Subdivision. The biggest downside that I can see would be the necessity to connect the existing tunnels to the UP Alhambra sub via a set of tunnels under the river, as well as capacity issues since there isn't a whole lot of room in the trench to expand (and there's a lot of freight traffic going from the Alameda Corridor to points due east).
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 17, 2015 15:50:00 GMT -8
OK, they've mentioned the 6th St. bridge replacement and future expansion. Hopefully that means they're looking to build a bridge that accommodates tracks for a future East L.A. extension within the bridge structure itself, under the driving surface.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Mar 17, 2015 15:56:32 GMT -8
Now I'm wondering if there may in fact be any possibility of continuing the Purple Line through the Alhambra Subdivision. The biggest downside that I can see would be the necessity to connect the existing tunnels to the UP Alhambra sub via a set of tunnels under the river, as well as capacity issues since there isn't a whole lot of room in the trench to expand (and there's a lot of freight traffic going from the Alameda Corridor to points due east). No. Not likely. Right now, in the March Metro Board Report Updates, it appears that Metro will be adding two stations (1st St. and 6th St.) as part of a project to dispatch trains every two minutes with the opening of the Purple Line in 2024. There will be further Board Reports on this development later in 2015 or mid 2016.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 17, 2015 17:49:17 GMT -8
Impressive, they're proposing two new stations, nice. I just hope they don't build the 6th st station in a way that nixes the possibility of extending the subway east onto 6th/Whittier.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 17, 2015 20:48:01 GMT -8
Now I'm wondering if there may in fact be any possibility of continuing the Purple Line through the Alhambra Subdivision. The biggest downside that I can see would be the necessity to connect the existing tunnels to the UP Alhambra sub via a set of tunnels under the river, as well as capacity issues since there isn't a whole lot of room in the trench to expand (and there's a lot of freight traffic going from the Alameda Corridor to points due east). If there's an extension into the San Gabriel Valley, most likely the UP Alhambra sub is outta the question. I think running it to USC Medical and then onto Valley, or to CSLA and then on Garvey, would probably be a better choice. Id say Garvey only because 1, the density on that street through Monterey Park is immense, and 2, theres a good chance the Silver Line is gonna run on one of the major arteries north of the 10 (Main/Valley/Huntington etc.) if Measure R2 passes.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 19, 2015 10:26:12 GMT -8
Now I'm wondering if there may in fact be any possibility of continuing the Purple Line through the Alhambra Subdivision. The biggest downside that I can see would be the necessity to connect the existing tunnels to the UP Alhambra sub via a set of tunnels under the river, as well as capacity issues since there isn't a whole lot of room in the trench to expand (and there's a lot of freight traffic going from the Alameda Corridor to points due east). No. Not likely. Right now, in the March Metro Board Report Updates, it appears that Metro will be adding two stations (1st St. and 6th St.) as part of a project to dispatch trains every two minutes with the opening of the Purple Line in 2024. There will be further Board Reports on this development later in 2015 or mid 2016. The board report almost makes it sound like the improvements (tunnel widening, 3 track turnaround, etc.) are required for higher levels of operation once the PLE is completed. Makes me wonder how this wasn't factored into the PLE cost? Don't get me wrong, the Arts District is absolutely booming, and the 1st St. station will be right next to the Santa Fe development that just opened up. It will be interesting to see what the next few months bring in terms of the plan, the cost, the timeline, and where the $$$ is going to come from. RT
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Mar 19, 2015 20:18:00 GMT -8
No. Not likely. Right now, in the March Metro Board Report Updates, it appears that Metro will be adding two stations (1st St. and 6th St.) as part of a project to dispatch trains every two minutes with the opening of the Purple Line in 2024. There will be further Board Reports on this development later in 2015 or mid 2016. The board report almost makes it sound like the improvements (tunnel widening, 3 track turnaround, etc.) are required for higher levels of operation once the PLE is completed. Makes me wonder how this wasn't factored into the PLE cost? Don't get me wrong, the Arts District is absolutely booming, and the 1st St. station will be right next to the Santa Fe development that just opened up. It will be interesting to see what the next few months bring in terms of the plan, the cost, the timeline, and where the $$$ is going to come from. RT From attending the presentation, this project is actually needed to make the Purple Line Extension work. Remember that the original engineering on the subway was done, what 20 years ago, and operational assumptions have evolved over time. As the report mentions, things are more complicated with the SCRIP and high-speed rail. The ability to depart a train every two minutes is something needed to meet the federal full funding grant agreement. Making the adjustments on the front end is now finally going to be dealt with, even though this whole reconfiguration is going to take years.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 10, 2015 9:49:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 10, 2015 11:00:21 GMT -8
It sounds like it wouldn't be dependent on R2 to me. If that's true, this is basically an absolute best-case scenario. And to get the entirety of it built by 2024 I'm fairly certain the approvals would need to come in long before the IOC choose a final city in 2017, meaning that the acceleration would take place whether we get the olympics in the end or not. This sounds like deliriously good news, if they manage to pull it off. Basically the reason why so many people wanted the olympics bid in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Sept 10, 2015 11:06:39 GMT -8
The la times articles has some more info on the idea. Apparently Metro is requesting to join a new FTA pilot program in order to receive the funding to be able to accelerate the completion. If approved, Metro would have concurrent construction on all three phases of the extension and have it all finished by May 31, 2024, six weeks before the olympics are proposed to start. LA Times - Eyeing L.A.'s Olympic bid, Metro seeks to accelerate two rail projects
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 10, 2015 11:10:32 GMT -8
Concurrent construction all 3 phases will be really awesome! And 24/7 construction to make sure it is done before 2024? It will be like a dream come true.
Let's hope this happens.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 10, 2015 18:33:06 GMT -8
OK, just to clarify: this is contingent upon L.A. winning the bid for the 2024 Olympics. Supposing the FTA approves this in 2016, can the plug be pulled on all this in 2017 if L.A. is not chosen or is it that once the FTA is committed, we get to enjoy the spoils regardless?
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 11, 2015 6:31:36 GMT -8
I think fta approval will be on the merits of the project acceleration to serve as an ideal pilot project candidate not the Olympics. La is submitting because of the Olympics, but approval won't happen because of it. So purple line is probably a better candidate to win of the two, not knowing what other projects around the nation are competing, because it offers the most bang for the buck in that the eir is already set, construction already under way and the acceleration could happen almost immediately resulting in a massive eleven year savings. I doubt many other projects around the nation could compete with that scale/volume of time savings.
For the Olympics, the people mover would be far more important to accelerate, but I doubt it will be competitive with the purple line to be the pilot project.
I wonder what this would mean right away, probably allow simultaneous station box construction on all three phase one stations, instead of the comically long staggered box construction they're currently doing, very doable considering Crenshaw has simultaneous box construction and a much shorter construction schedule as a result. Phase three would immediately start utility work and lots of money political pressure would be thrown to accelerate utility relocation for phase two and three. Possibly resulting in phase two and three having nearly simultaneous box construction.
One question I've wondered, regardless of acceleration, do they leave the tbm in place to wait for years between phases or do they extract and replace the tbm in between phase one and two and two and three? Do they leave the tbm in place at the end of the line so they can continue to the sea eventually (especially as we will have tens of millions fewer veterans in 2035 making the stop far less significant when it's completed and a sort of useless end point at that time.)
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Aug 12, 2016 12:34:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 31, 2016 5:07:48 GMT -8
Maybe less graffiti. Otherwise, seems unnecessary to redesign it.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 14, 2016 16:00:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 30, 2017 17:12:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 31, 2017 17:32:48 GMT -8
It's about time!!! I was there last month and that whole downstairs looked depressing.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 24, 2018 9:48:06 GMT -8
Woman with Foot on Seat ArrestedI'm sure this story is going to be a lightning rod on both sides. The police was told the woman to remove her feet from the seat. And when she refused, she was removed from the train and arrested. For me, this is not about obedience to police, but about the police enforcing the clearly-posted rules. As a regular rider, I'm tired of these rules being ignored.
|
|