|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 17, 2011 17:42:57 GMT -8
Metro could potentially lose a significant amount of money by buying land needlessly, and no one seems to have caught it. The new tunnel for the Blue Line Regional Connector project will intersect the isolated portion of the old Pacific Electric "Hollywood Subway" tunnel. It is large enough to be used as a storage area for trains. Holding at least two, potentially as many as eight - three car trains. While the tunnel was blocked by the Bonaventure Hotel foundation at 4th and Figueroa, the regional connector would hit the now isolated section at Flower St - before the blockage to the outside. It extends 3 full city blocks to the old subway terminal building at 4th and Hill. The land is basically free, wide enough for two tracks which splits out to five tracks with platforms. It could also be accessed from the subway terminal building by operators starting or leaving shifts.  The Bonaventure hotel construction split the tunnel in the early 1970's. Now there is also an apartment building in front of the old tunnel entrance at Glendale Blvd, so the Northwest section is now also completely isolated. But the regional connector would intersect the isolated SouthEast section. From what I could find this section is now being used to store unused artwork from one of the museums, but I can't figure out who owns it. This thing was designed for trains, enormous and completely isolated from the public. If we don't use it, we'll be wasting money on procurement of storage elsewhere. Any thoughts? -- detail of where it is  -- (looking East toward Hill) (With trains - about 1926)  (After tracks were removed)  -- (further down, still looking East - tunnel ends right behind the car and subway building is upstairs via ramp in back left)  -- (Looking West from the back wall. Ramp on right goes up to the Subway terminal building at 4th and Hill)  --  |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 18, 2011 7:24:08 GMT -8
Does anyone know if Metro owns this land or if it can be had? I seem to recall some discussion about using the tunnel years ago, but it faltered.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 18, 2011 9:09:22 GMT -8
How about using part of it for a pedestrian entrance to the Red/Purple lines? If the office buildings around there could be taxed to construct it, there could be a portal near 4th and Hope. Not at all sure how feasible that might or might not be. It could help to make up for the lost station on the DT connector.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 18, 2011 21:18:31 GMT -8
Short answer for what it's worth it will cost a lot more than meets the eye and will essentially eliminate the possiblity of ever having a 5th/Flower station due to the track curvature. The tunnel "maybe" free but the set up would cost a lot more up front for something that will essentially create the very bottleneck the connector project is trying to eliminate at 7th Street Metro Center.  |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 19, 2011 6:44:07 GMT -8
How do you see this causing a bottleneck? Other than acquisition costs and laying down track and systems, I don't see how any other property within miles could be had as cheaply.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 19, 2011 7:54:21 GMT -8
How do you see this causing a bottleneck? Other than acquisition costs and laying down track and systems, I don't see how any other property within miles could be had as cheaply. Because this is an underground wye where vehicles moving in and out perpendicular to the flow of the main line. The best way to handle this is to have one long pocket track in between the two mainline tracks similar to what was done at the Embarcadero station in SF Muni Metro. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 23, 2011 0:15:24 GMT -8
Pocket track makes sense. The guy from Metro Rail operations says the pocket track could eventually be replaced with the 5th/Flower St (Financial District) Station Easier to get rid of it the study concludes  |
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 25, 2011 7:31:14 GMT -8
There's a lot of potential problems here, for both construction and operations. Is the Connector going to be at the same level as the tunnel? How sharp are the turns from the Connector to the tunnel going to have to be? Are you intending to use the old station, and if so, is it possible to provide reasonable access, and convert it to high platforms? Even if not, can you fit 3-car light rail trains on all five station tracks, or are you going to have to cut down the track layout? To be at all cost-effective, this would probably have to have flat junctions with the Connector, which means conflicting routes on the busiest light rail line in LA, and the sharp turns means that trains will take longer to cross the northbound track (not that this sort of arrangement is completely unworkable, see Copley on the Green Line in Boston). And what trains are you going to terminate there? Normally, you'd want passengers to get the benefit of a train that serves both ends of Downtown, rather than terminating in the middle. One use that I can see is as a storage yard for trains waiting Staples Center events to let out. Another possibility in the very long term, once the light rail lines reach distant parts like Ontario, San Pedro, or Orange County, is running express service to those places (with passing tracks at a few select spots), and having the old PE terminal be the downtown terminal for those express trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Feb 26, 2015 12:39:20 GMT -8
How do you see this causing a bottleneck? Other than acquisition costs and laying down track and systems, I don't see how any other property within miles could be had as cheaply. Because this is an underground wye where vehicles moving in and out perpendicular to the flow of the main line. The best way to handle this is to have one long pocket track in between the two mainline tracks similar to what was done at the Embarcadero station in SF Muni Metro. The hotel has often been cited as an obstacle that would forever preclude the use of the Belmont Tunnel for rail purposes. But I wonder about this. The picture in this thread led me to suspect that it could be possible. All they would have to do is to build through the basement by adding a new casing up to seismic standards and reclaim the right of way. This would effectively cut off one side of the hotel's basement so they would have to compensate the hotel for that *BUT* that might be a whole lot cheaper than building a whole 'nother structure from scratch.
The apartments? there might be a way to finagle around that too but I am less sure of that.
Regards, Fred M. Cain
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 26, 2015 15:36:09 GMT -8
In London, they use 200-year-old tunnels. In Los Angeles, anything old gets condemned quickly, like this tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Feb 26, 2015 16:15:46 GMT -8
In fairness to London, there are plenty of abandoned tunnels littering the city.
I would say that they were abandoned for similar reasons, having outlived their usefulness, but that's a lie when it comes to the Belmont tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Feb 27, 2015 5:09:53 GMT -8
In fairness to London, there are plenty of abandoned tunnels littering the city. I would say that they were abandoned for similar reasons, having outlived their usefulness, but that's a lie when it comes to the Belmont tunnel. What I think is a darn shame and a terrible waste is that this tunnel would probably cost several billion dollars to build today. If you don't believe that, just look at the abuilding Third Street Tunnel in San Francisco as a case in point!
No doubt, when the Belmont Tunnel & Subway were build in the 1920s, they were probably built to last 200 years. In fact, please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't the Belmont intended to be only the first link in a planned subway system for Los Angeles? But five years later, the Great Depression hit which was in turn followed by WWII on its heels. Then, after the war, well, we all know what happened to P.E. after the war. Very, very sad case that.
But, here's what I think could be done: Seal off the right of way (ROW) through the basement of the hotel and compensate the hotel for this. Using modern technologies, vibrations could be kept at a minimum.
Then, near the portal, begin lowering the right of way with a lowered floor and a tunnel extension that would pass underneath the "Toluca apartments". Something a little bit like this was done with the east portal of the Twin Peaks Tunnel in San Francisco connecting it into the new Muni Metro.
A new portal for the Belmont Tunnel could have the tracks emerging just a bit further to the northwest from the Toluca apartments. But from then on comes what I believe could be the most difficult part: Much of the surface ROW has been converted into a bike trail. Gaining control of that ROW back from the cyclists could actually prove to be far more politically difficult than the issues of the Hotel basement and the apartments.
I believe this COULD be done. But will it? Actually that is very possible if not likely. Just not in our lifetimes. 
Regards, Fred M. Cain
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 27, 2015 9:25:08 GMT -8
In fairness to London, there are plenty of abandoned tunnels littering the city. I would say that they were abandoned for similar reasons, having outlived their usefulness, but that's a lie when it comes to the Belmont tunnel. What I think is a darn shame and a terrible waste is that this tunnel would probably cost several billion dollars to build today. If you don't believe that, just look at the abuilding Third Street Tunnel in San Francisco as a case in point!
No doubt, when the Belmont Tunnel & Subway were build in the 1920s, they were probably built to last 200 years. In fact, please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't the Belmont intended to be only the first link in a planned subway system for Los Angeles? But five years later, the Great Depression hit which was in turn followed by WWII on its heels. Then, after the war, well, we all know what happened to P.E. after the war. Very, very sad case that.
But, here's what I think could be done: Seal off the right of way (ROW) through the basement of the hotel and compensate the hotel for this. Using modern technologies, vibrations could be kept at a minimum.
Then, near the portal, begin lowering the right of way with a lowered floor and a tunnel extension that would pass underneath the "Toluca apartments". Something a little bit like this was done with the east portal of the Twin Peaks Tunnel in San Francisco connecting it into the new Muni Metro.
A new portal for the Belmont Tunnel could have the tracks emerging just a bit further to the northwest from the Toluca apartments. But from then on comes what I believe could be the most difficult part: Much of the surface ROW has been converted into a bike trail. Gaining control of that ROW back from the cyclists could actually prove to be far more politically difficult than the issues of the Hotel basement and the apartments.
I believe this COULD be done. But will it? Actually that is very possible if not likely. Just not in our lifetimes.
Regards, Fred M. Cain
It is not the basement of the hotel, but rather the foundation of the entire building. I'm no engineer, but pretty sure it would be impossible to bore a tunnel through a building foundation and not compromise the entire building. |
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Feb 27, 2015 10:32:05 GMT -8
Masonite said that, "It is not the basement of the hotel, but rather the foundation of the entire building. I'm no engineer, but pretty sure it would be impossible to bore a tunnel through a building foundation and not compromise the entire building."
Nor am I. But it is somewhat confusing to know exactly what the real situation is. Another guy on another list said the same thing you did. But then someone else told me that, "no, it's the basement of the hotel". So, I don't know.
But even if it IS the foundation, that shouldn't preclude reinstating the tunnel through it. It's just that the price of such a thing would by determined by the difficulty in doing so. It would take a really good engineer to look at it and size up the situation. But neither of us are engineers, so, ...............
Read more: transittalk.proboards.com/thread/1092/pe-tunnel-connector-storage?page=1#ixzz3SyHpd94Y
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 27, 2015 10:56:01 GMT -8
Masonite said that, "It is not the basement of the hotel, but rather the foundation of the entire building. I'm no engineer, but pretty sure it would be impossible to bore a tunnel through a building foundation and not compromise the entire building."
Nor am I. But it is somewhat confusing to know exactly what the real situation is. Another guy on another list said the same thing you did. But then someone else told me that, "no, it's the basement of the hotel". So, I don't know.
But even if it IS the foundation, that shouldn't preclude reinstating the tunnel through it. It's just that the price of such a thing would by determined by the difficulty in doing so. It would take a really good engineer to look at it and size up the situation. But neither of us are engineers, so, ...............
Read more: transittalk.proboards.com/thread/1092/pe-tunnel-connector-storage?page=1#ixzz3SyHpd94Y
Everything I have ever saw on it says the foundation was built into the tunnel which makes sense. There isn't much need for a basement other than storage in a hotel and that would mean the foundation is even lower under ground which is doubtful. Doubt there has ever been a high rise in the world that has a tunnel built through its foundation, much less one in earthquake country. It would almost certainly destroy the integrity of it. Foundations aren't meant to be tinkered with. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 28, 2015 2:47:46 GMT -8
The problem I see is digging the curving additional tunnels for the curving tracks connecting to the storage tracks in the Subway Terminal. Here we have a trade-off: More excavation to allow larger-radius curves, or less excavation and sharper curves which would necessitate slower operation and make derailments somewhat more likely. And as I recall, when the Bonaventure foundation was built, the demolition crew taking out that section of the tunnel found that old concrete, if it was properly mixed with good materials (unlike the 6th St. Bridge), gets harder with age and can be a real challenge to remove.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 5, 2015 15:41:02 GMT -8
I love when these threads come to life....
I've always been a fan of trying to reuse the tunnel, especially the portion that leads to the Subway Terminal as storage and potentially a terminus. A lot of this got covered in the Grand Central Market thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Mar 6, 2015 9:58:16 GMT -8
Gateway,
I keep getting told this cannot be done but I remain unconvinced. I think it can be done but I have to admit that I really don't know.
I am neither an engineer nor do I live in the Greater L.A. area.
Regards, Fred M. Cain |
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Mar 6, 2015 13:41:52 GMT -8
Gateway,
I keep getting told this cannot be done but I remain unconvinced. I think it can be done but I have to admit that I really don't know.
I am neither an engineer nor do I live in the Greater L.A. area.
Regards, Fred M. Cain There is NO / ZERO use for the ex-train tunnel. For one thing, it does not meet modern Fire / Life / Safety standards. It doesn't go where the current transit network goes. It is not and will not be on any planning radar screens. There is no need for storage, as the four branches of the downtown regional connector have yards and storage on the extreme ends of three of the four routes, so any type of service from the center does not make sense and it wouldn't benefit operations. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 6, 2015 14:03:27 GMT -8
Honestly, considering the water intrusion problems the tunnel has always had, I would be surprised if it ever gets used for anything at all. You could probably open up an access point somewhere into the tunnel and put a bunch of 20 foot datacenter containers into it, but keeping a bunch of computer equipment in a leaky tunnel is still kind of begging for trouble in a blackout.
Still, I wonder if anyone's ever considered the datacenter option. Who owns the rights to the tunnel now, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 6, 2015 14:05:52 GMT -8
I can see the Subway Terminal tunnel used for downtown storage or as a place to stash bad-order equipment until after rush hours. Sacramento RT Metro has a yard just south of downtown that is used for trippers and special moves. That said, the cost of connecting the Subway Terminal tunnel to the downtown connector would far outweigh any usefulness it might have. I've heard that the present Gold Line yard northeast of Chinatown will be abandoned once the Operations Campus in Monrovia is opened, but Metro may decide to keep it for the above reasons. It might come down to whether keeping that facility open would be worth the expense of security and maintenance for what may be a marginal function.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 6, 2015 14:31:08 GMT -8
Interesting news about the Chinatown yard. I actually hope it's true.
Bob, is it possible that those maintenance tracks could be used for a future Burbank/Glendale line that would tie in at Chinatown?
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 9, 2015 23:32:04 GMT -8
Gateway,
I keep getting told this cannot be done but I remain unconvinced. I think it can be done but I have to admit that I really don't know.
I am neither an engineer nor do I live in the Greater L.A. area.
Regards, Fred M. Cain I'm not an engineer either. However, as is true for these projects, there has to be some kind of political backing; and that's just to get the ball rolling. As much as I have been a fan of resurrecting the tunnel, there are reasons politicians are not lending their names to it. Just to put it into perspective, this tunnel is 90 years old and hasn't been used for rail service in the last 60. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 10, 2015 1:28:07 GMT -8
Here's some video of the thing for your amusement:
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 10, 2015 8:15:27 GMT -8
At this point, I think the best we could hope for as far as the tunnel goes is some sort of transit museum, or maybe an underground mall with a direct connection to 7th Street/Metro Center.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 10, 2015 11:01:27 GMT -8
That's a really good idea Philip, though I don't know about connecting it to 7th St/Metro. However, connecting it to a future Financial District (4th St./5th St.) in-fill Station would work. The Financial District Station would be one portal to the tunnel/transit museum and the Subway Terminal would be the other. The leaks would have to get patched so the pictures/displays don't get wet. Restrooms would have to be built at either portal. If it's cost effective to get utilities/venting system into the center of the tunnel there could be a concession stand or café. As a part of the monthly DTLA Art Walk, artists/vendors could set up temporary booths to display and sell their art/trinkets/jewelry. The potential is there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 11, 2015 11:25:15 GMT -8
It's a shame that such a beautiful historic structure was abandoned and partially filled. It's really cool footage in the Dana Andrews movie (While The City Sleeps) by the way, great director (Fritz Lang) and cast and I hope to see it at one point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 11, 2015 14:15:24 GMT -8
I understand the safety and logistic concerns, but we all know that if this same situation was presented in any other american city, they would FIND a way to reuse this and not just complain about it being too complicated.
We need to stop making excuses about costs, costs, costs. That is frankly the ONLY thing preventing this section of the tunnel (Flower-PE Terminal building) from being reused.
And as tens of thousands more people call Downtown home, and billions and billions more in real estate investments come flooding in, that excuse will wear out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 11, 2015 14:24:29 GMT -8
Just to put it into perspective, this tunnel is 90 years old and hasn't been used for rail service in the last 60. And? The first subways in Tokyo, New York (actually a seismic area in of itself), and London are all at least a century old (London's is 125 years old). Not sure how lack of operations for six decades determines it's reuse practicality and deterioration (if any) of the tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2015 14:25:01 GMT -8
I understand the safety and logistic concerns, but we all know that if this same situation was presented in any other american city, they would FIND a way to reuse this and not just complain about it being too complicated. We need to stop making excuses about costs, costs, costs. That is frankly the ONLY thing preventing this section of the tunnel (Flower-PE Terminal building) from being reused. And as tens of thousands more people call Downtown home, and billions and billions more in real estate investments come flooding in, that excuse will wear out. It is a solution in search of a problem. Not sure what people want. As Bart said, there is no need for storage. It doesn't go where a rail line is needed (it is not like it follows anywhere near the path of the Connector). Oh and the middle of it is gone anyway. Unfortunately, there just isn't anything useful to utilize at this point. As for other cities, Cincinnati started building a subway system and never opened it. It isn't being utilized today for anything. |
|
