|
|
Post by wakko11 on Jun 30, 2008 15:58:02 GMT -8
Haven't heard anything for a long time regarding the Run-Through Track project.
Anyone know if it's still alive? Or is it dead?
It occurred to me as I was admiring the nice, new Gold Line tracks and bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 30, 2008 16:16:00 GMT -8
The last thing I heard was that it was just waiting for funding; I'm pretty sure that everything else is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 30, 2008 18:27:48 GMT -8
Last I heard was that Metrolink diverted the funds they had for the Run-through project to fund the 5th Union Station Lead Track project.
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jun 30, 2008 20:06:13 GMT -8
I'm trying to visualize not only what this could look like, but how it would operate.
So a southbound Orange County Line or Amtrak Surfliner train is ready to depart. It will head over the 101 on a bridge and connect with the main line where?
Would northbound trains coming from Orange County also enter Union Station through the run through tracks or continue to use the "throat"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 30, 2008 20:34:35 GMT -8
Last I heard was that Metrolink diverted the funds they had for the Run-Through project to fund the 5th Union Station Lead Track project.  Actually, Metrolink is moving ahead with preparation for the Run-Through project by bringing back Tracks 13-14 and 15-16 with a funding loan from OCTA. These were removed long ago and the Amtrak mail dock was in place there until recently. To extend tracks 3-4 and 5-6 for the Run-Through, the lost capacity must be replaced with 13-14 and 15-16. So, this part of the project is moving forward. The state was supposed to fund the property acquisition for the Run-Through via Prop. 1B, but so far, the state as not moved to fund this part of the project. Metrolink did not divert any funds. The 5th lead is part of the increased capacity that is needed to build and operate the Run-Through. Sadly, this is a slow going project. We (TTC) met with Caltrans and attempted to get a column built in the middle of the 101, while it was torn up for the Gold Line Run-Through. The State Director of Finance turned Will Kempton down when he attempted to get this in the budget last year. Hope you can see how complected and frustrating this all is. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 30, 2008 22:35:34 GMT -8
heh. I was just at Union Station today thinking about how much wasted space there seemed to be down there on the other side of the Pacific Surfliner tracks underneath the East Portal.
they definately could use both the extra platforms and the run-through tracks. that's just with Metrolink expansion. imagine how crazy things could get if high-speed rail gets built.
when you get right down to it, the run-through tracks are kind of the Metrolink equivalent to the MTA's downtown connector, given their potential to reduce rail congestion, relatively short length, relationship to Union Station and difficulty in getting the average person to understand why they're needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 1, 2008 22:25:19 GMT -8
Last I heard was that Metrolink diverted the funds they had for the Run-through project to fund the 5th Union Station Lead Track project. What is that exactly? Where does CAHSR fit in? Oh well, at least you got the Gold Line giving you a taste of run-through goodness starting next year. |
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 2, 2008 4:32:01 GMT -8
Last I heard was that Metrolink diverted the funds they had for the Run-Through project to fund the 5th Union Station Lead Track project. What is that exactly? Where does CAHSR fit in? Oh well, at least you got the Gold Line giving you a taste of run-through goodness starting next year. Union Station had the capacity of 4 entrance (or lead) tracks. The 5th lead increased the capacity and was one of the elements that had to be completed for the Run-Through track project.  Rail service into LAUS before run-through.Rail service with run-through.CA HSR could or could not fit in. Initially HSR could share the Metrolink / Amtrak facilities, but the plan has been to build another deck for the HSR station. |
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 2, 2008 13:06:52 GMT -8
CA HSR could or could not fit in. Initially HSR could share the Metrolink / Amtrak facilities, but the plan has been to build another deck for the HSR station. double decked run through track would be a dream. is there any were i could get more information on what you are referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 23, 2008 9:11:46 GMT -8
does anyone know what the funding status for this is? would it be a metrolink fund, part of measure r, or just a pipe dream with an EIR?
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 23, 2008 14:16:27 GMT -8
If Prop 1A passes run-through tracks might be built as part of that project. That's what I heard anyway.
I mean, if Caltrain gets electrification as part of the HSR project then why shouldn't we get run-through tracks?
|
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 23, 2008 21:23:14 GMT -8
If Prop 1A passes run-through tracks might be built as part of that project. That's what I heard anyway. I mean, if Caltrain gets electrification as part of the HSR project then why shouldn't we get run-through tracks? Why isn't Metrolink getting electrification? |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 23, 2008 21:57:11 GMT -8
Metrolink will be electrified, or at least the lines it will share with the high-speed lines will.
|
|
|
|
Post by 11ball on May 9, 2011 9:29:17 GMT -8
See my post under Metrolink
DS
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 16, 2012 7:55:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Jul 29, 2012 20:53:35 GMT -8
Last I heard was that Metrolink diverted the funds they had for the Run-through project to fund the 5th Union Station Lead Track project. (Emphasis mine) What does this mean, exactly? Is it just adding one more track and/or platform for Metrolink trains? |
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 30, 2012 8:51:56 GMT -8
Last I heard was that Metrolink diverted the funds they had for the Run-through project to fund the 5th Union Station Lead Track project. (Emphasis mine) What does this mean, exactly? Is it just adding one more track and/or platform for Metrolink trains? To actually build the Run-Through tracks, station capacity must be maintained while tracks 3-4, 5-6, 7-8 and 9-10 are taken out of service for construction. OCTA funded (and will get reimbursed) as they took the financial lead to build the 5th Union Station Lead Tracks. While say 3-4 and 5-6 are out of service, newly rebuilt tracks 13-14 and 15 will replace the capacity and the same thing will happen will taking 7-8 and 9-10 out of service. I hope this clears up to construction sequence a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 30, 2012 17:44:10 GMT -8
I originally posted this in the CAHSR thread. If they go with this plan, then there would be 4 Amtrak/Metrolink run through tracks. Since the LA/ANA portion of HSR has been put on indefinite hold, I wonder if the structure they build over the 101 for the tracks will support what would have been the 6 HSR tracks? Of course, the plan shown here also moves the Gold Line platform as part of the realignment, and I don't imagine that being in the cards. But you can do a lot with $350 million...  RT |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 6, 2016 11:57:48 GMT -8
Just wanted to give a little update on this. As a lot of you probably know, this project was given the name Southern California Regional Interconnection Project (SCRIP). Projected costs were $350 million for a new aerial structure over the 101 that would provide 2 run-through tracks, splitting into 4 platforms at Union Station. www.metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip/However, the entire project was recently upped in scope, renamed, and merged with much of the LA Union Station Master Plan. The project is now known as "Link US." www.metro.net/projects/link-us/It now contains the planned overhaul of the Union Station passenger terminal itself, and as many as 10 (!) tracks over the 101. It also shifts the design to accommodate the new at-grade High Speed Rail platforms that the CAHSR recommended in their 2016 design. The prior design had assumed an underground terminal to the east of LAUS for CAHSR, but that looks to be off the table. It also fits the 'blended' traffic pattern for CAHSR south to Anaheim, and the potential 'blended' or exclusive options from Burbank to LAUS.  The downside to all of this is that a new EIR is needed. A final EIR and notice to proceed is now expected in December 2017. However, it seems that by bundling SCRIP with the new passenger concourse, they may get this all proceeding sooner than originally projected. Money seems to be secure, and this appears to be happening. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jul 7, 2016 9:02:36 GMT -8
At this point, they might as well just cap the 101 freeway and put a park on top. A 10-track flyover is going to require a massive bridge anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 8, 2016 10:47:23 GMT -8
That's a hellish scoping change, sort of makes me want to vote no in November if that's what they're wasting money on.
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 8, 2016 10:57:43 GMT -8
SCRIP was to be funded by state/federal funds, with the remainder from Measure R. Not sure if the new Link US plan will include any Measure R2 funding. And I personally see it as a great use of money, but hey, to each their own opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 8, 2016 15:11:19 GMT -8
I mean it's probably "good" but the capacity probably has a diminishing return of usefulness relative to the increased expense. But since cost benefit analysis is never done for infrastructure scoping increases, no one cares nor knows what a waste or genuine need such scoping changes represent. And even if there is a silver lining, this is indicative of the general problems of American infrastructure and why infrastructure is so expensive in this country: for example, this scoping change quadruples the initial plan. If the initial plan was so inadequate that it needed to be quadrupled, those staff who planned the original ought to be fired for such incompetence. If the scoped up plan is way more than needed these staff ought to be fired. Either way one of the two plans was wildly wrong and I suspect it is the new plan. Some bureaucrat exec smelled money and just made his employees bloat the project to the maximum he thought he could extract. Opposite of good governance. It's always a he too, they're generally compensating for something what with always trying to increase the size of their projects.  |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jul 11, 2016 8:45:17 GMT -8
There's another possible explanation: the initial plan was deliberately lowballed to make it easier to secure funding because of the pathological reaction toward any taxpayer funding requests taken by people such as yourself.
I really don't have a better way to put it. If an agency puts forward a broad, future-looking plan that takes into account future ridership increases, they're blasted as being unrealistic, pie in the sky estimates that will never come to pass. Meanwhile, DOT vehicle traffic estimates that show a linear rising trend aren't questioned, even when more recent data shows traffic plateauing.
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 11, 2016 10:40:14 GMT -8
They also had three separate projects with separate time lines going after separate funding that all directly impacted each other. SCRIP was around first, then the Union Station Master Plan, and HSR has changed a few times. Now that the Master Plan is a go and HSR has made up their mind about the location of their platforms, it really makes sense to merge them. Otherwise you're going to be building SCRIP, then immediately reconfiguring it to accommodate HSR track needs, while rebuilding the concourse somewhere in all of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 11, 2016 11:57:55 GMT -8
There's another possible explanation: the initial plan was deliberately lowballed to make it easier to secure funding because of the pathological reaction toward any taxpayer funding requests taken by people such as yourself. I really don't have a better way to put it. If an agency puts forward a broad, future-looking plan that takes into account future ridership increases, they're blasted as being unrealistic, pie in the sky estimates that will never come to pass. Meanwhile, DOT vehicle traffic estimates that show a linear rising trend aren't questioned, even when more recent data shows traffic plateauing. I can't think of many instances of where we have overbuilt infrastructure in SoCal. 99% of the time we underbuild. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jul 11, 2016 13:15:10 GMT -8
I can't think of many instances of where we have overbuilt infrastructure in SoCal. 99% of the time we underbuild. Wasn't specifically referring to SoCal, although the heavy opposition to all things HSR is part of it, usually accompanied by rhetoric like "just spend that money to widen the 5 instead." |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 20, 2017 8:44:09 GMT -8
A new option is being considered for LinkUS, an aerial terminal. thesource.metro.net/2017/07/19/new-video-link-union-station-and-an-above-the-tracks-concourse/The main goal seems to be saving money with this design. I can't say I like some aspects of it. Outside, open air transfers and plazas to cut costs is always what civil engineers and architects who don't like in California put in every project. But for the people who actually have to make those transfers and live/work in those spaces, they kinda suck. It makes taking transit FEEL low-end and penny-pinching, to me. Newsflash: Its hot sometimes in downtown! And it rains sometimes! And its smoggy sometimes! Anyway, just an option at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jul 27, 2017 9:27:51 GMT -8
If the below-grade concourse offers more opportunities for mixed-use and retail development, but is still projected to cost more than the above-grade concourse that doesn't offer the same opportunities, that suggests to me a slightly slanted cost estimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 25, 2018 14:02:42 GMT -8
|
|
