|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 24, 2021 12:24:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2021 14:59:32 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground. There is no easy way to get there unless you go below the residential neighborhood that separates end of Green/C line and the "Heart of Norwalk". The good news is that is a relative short and straight tunnel (just under 1 mile is my guess) so it shouldn't cost a fortune. Once the C line go past Vista Verde Park, it can resurface and either a street level or elevated station at Firestone/Woods will meet the development objective of Norwalk. From there, C line can continue on surface or elevated on Firestone to San Antonio Drive, crossing I-5 and then turn East on Civic Center to Norwalk Metrolink and CAHSR station. Or alternatively, go straight east from Firestone/Woods over I-5 and skip the detour on Firestone Or more simpler, 4km from the station to metrolink via imperial total tunnel length should be 1.5 km or less. elevated preferably on imperial, 200 million for the 1.5 km of tunneling and firestone station, 200 million for 2.5 km of elevated, and 100 million for an additional platform and tail tracks at the metrolink, (probably have to move the pedestrian overpass to squeeze the platform in on the west side). that's a half billion project, wildly expensive by international standards, but minimizes tunneling. At grade on Imperial would save more money, but the Green line is otherwise a fully grade separated light rail line, and imposing grade crossings for this extension would create a capacity and reliability choke that would ripple to increase headways and decrease on time performance on the entire line. Save the extra two-to-six billion dollars spent on your two all tunnel options and give norwalk like 500 million to buy some BEV trolleys or some other such cutesy short line solution that toots up and down firestone to connect to the station at Imperial/Firestone.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jul 28, 2021 3:10:42 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground This is a project I don’t know much about ... it appears to the naked eye there is a roughly 2.5-3 mile gap that needs to be filled here. So would there be an infill subway station somewhere? And would the station at the MetroLink be Subway as well?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 28, 2021 13:09:44 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground This is a project I don’t know much about ... it appears to the naked eye there is a roughly 2.5-3 mile gap that needs to be filled here. So would there be an infill subway station somewhere? And would the station at the MetroLink be Subway as well? Its at very early stages and there will probably be some initial design options coming out of the rail integration study that Metro just started.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 30, 2021 9:00:15 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground This is a project I don’t know much about ... it appears to the naked eye there is a roughly 2.5-3 mile gap that needs to be filled here. So would there be an infill subway station somewhere? And would the station at the MetroLink be Subway as well? Likely two stations. One at Firestone/Imperial. This is likely to be subway because going from the freeway to imperial given the curve constraints oflight rail means at grade or elevated are unlikely. Tunneling is about 1.5 km total, so not a massive budget impingement. East of Firestone it's likely to transition from subway to elevated, and make a smooth transition southward to parallel the metrolink tracks for the terminus station and tail tracks. with sub grade construction in LA costing 400 million to 500 million per kilometer, the number one goal is to to only do sub grade when strictly necessary and minimize it to the maximum possible. Exiting the freeway and the built enviorment surrounding the freeway terminus means subway is likely the only way out of current rail terminus.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 2, 2021 13:41:04 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground. There is no easy way to get there unless you go below the residential neighborhood that separates end of Green/C line and the "Heart of Norwalk". The good news is that is a relative short and straight tunnel (just under 1 mile is my guess) so it shouldn't cost a fortune. Once the C line go past Vista Verde Park, it can resurface and either a street level or elevated station at Firestone/Woods will meet the development objective of Norwalk. From there, C line can continue on surface or elevated on Firestone to San Antonio Drive, crossing I-5 and then turn East on Civic Center to Norwalk Metrolink and CAHSR station. Or alternatively, go straight east from Firestone/Woods over I-5 and skip the detour on Firestone Or more simpler, 4km from the station to metrolink via imperial total tunnel length should be 1.5 km or less. elevated preferably on imperial, 200 million for the 1.5 km of tunneling and firestone station, 200 million for 2.5 km of elevated, and 100 million for an additional platform and tail tracks at the metrolink, (probably have to move the pedestrian overpass to squeeze the platform in on the west side). that's a half billion project, wildly expensive by international standards, but minimizes tunneling. At grade on Imperial would save more money, but the Green line is otherwise a fully grade separated light rail line, and imposing grade crossings for this extension would create a capacity and reliability choke that would ripple to increase headways and decrease on time performance on the entire line. Save the extra two-to-six billion dollars spent on your two all tunnel options and give norwalk like 500 million to buy some BEV trolleys or some other such cutesy short line solution that toots up and down firestone to connect to the station at Imperial/Firestone. Norwalk already said they won't go for the extension on Imperial, which was the original route - that study was snuffed out by Norwalk because it was going to recommend the exact routing you suggested. Norwalk commissioned this new study because it wants the station at Firestone for redevelopment opportunities which is what this is all about. The tunnel from 605 to Firestone/Woods is short so it won't cost a lot. And Norwalk is not ruling out elevated or surface on Firestone as long as it meets their redevelopment goals. This extension is not getting done without Norwalk signing off on it so let's work with what we got here... Norwalk is telling Metro where it wants the station. It's up the Metro now to come up with an alignment that will meet that goal. Going on Imperial is a deal-breaker for Norwalk.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 17, 2021 11:47:07 GMT -8
Norwalk has got a point. People want their rail lines to go to where they want to go, and not bypass their destinations on the outskirts.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Aug 20, 2022 9:08:20 GMT -8
When the K line opens with the Aviation/Century station, the C line will end at Aviation Century as well. Hasn't anybody ever thought to end it at Inglewood instead so it can serve a connection with the people mover to Sofi, Forum and the new Clippers stadium?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 22, 2022 15:18:19 GMT -8
You can't terminate a train at Inglewood station. It wasn't build for it... It is a 2 track station with no turn back pocket track.
When K line opens, it will only open from Expo line to Westchester due to construction at LAX/98th Street station so there will be a bus bridge between Westchester and Century/Aviation. This is why C line can terminate there at Century/Aviation temporarily because it is a temporary dead end. But once thru-service is allowed on K line at LAX/98th street, C line will terminate at LAX/98th Street which has a tail track into the yard for C train to turn around.
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 23, 2022 6:15:53 GMT -8
I wasn't aware metro was considering running C line trains to aviation/century in the interim while lax/metro center was being built.
I thought c line service was to remain the same until the k line trains could run to the South Bay allowing c line to reroute towards lax.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 23, 2022 7:56:44 GMT -8
Metro hasn't committed to anything yet other than K line will open to Westchester in 2023 (or Fairview Heights if they decide to start working on the pointless Centinela Ave grade separation) and LAX by 2024. Here is the service map Metro has published kline.metro.net/However, some (including myself) have speculated that Metro will start routing some C trains to Aviation/Century so the bus bridge is manageable.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Aug 23, 2022 13:26:24 GMT -8
When the people mover in Inglewood opens it would make sense to maybe terminate the C line at Crenshaw/Exposition. It was once in the planning to let the K line continue to Norwalk. Making the C line almost some sort of a spur to Redondo Beach. If you terminate the C line at Crenshaw/Exposition it would also connect the black neighborhoods of Inglewood, Leimert Park and Crenshaw with similar neighborhoods at the Rosa Park station and beyond. Especially with the Olympics coming up it would give a lot of people access to some major Olympic venues. The K line would then go to Redondo Beach also using two car trains until it finally will end at the Torrance transit center (or hopefully even further...).
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 23, 2022 13:38:56 GMT -8
I think it would be more beneficial to get Inglewood to extend the people mover to the hawthorne c line station instead.
There is plenty of parking at the hawthorne station that could be used for the people mover.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 23, 2022 16:01:40 GMT -8
The Inglewood people mover should not be a people mover at all. It should be light rail down Prairie two tracks from the Green line to the Crenshaw line. This would save the expense of a maintenance facility and orphan equipment. Faster trains to and from the events without transfers.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Aug 25, 2022 12:21:52 GMT -8
Your suggestion was once in the planning as a spur of the K line but since this is an Inglewood city decision paid for by them (and probably federal grants) Metro did not bother. Letting the C line terminate at Crenshaw/Expo would make sense though.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 27, 2022 8:37:55 GMT -8
Metro hasn't committed to anything yet other than K line will open to Westchester in 2023 (or Fairview Heights if they decide to start working on the pointless Centinela Ave grade separation) and LAX by 2024. Here is the service map Metro has published kline.metro.net/However, some (including myself) have speculated that Metro will start routing some C trains to Aviation/Century so the bus bridge is manageable. Unfortunately during meetings and in online documents Metro has stated that there will be no service to Aviation/Century until the LAX station opens. If you go to the Dropbox for Crenshaw and look a the pdf from the meeting in May, it's clearly stated. It's been in other docs as well.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 30, 2022 16:01:35 GMT -8
The operational complexity of branching likely outstrips any savings from shortening. There's not much between Century and Imperial to cause congestion.
|
|