|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 2, 2008 17:32:41 GMT -8
Subways can't run under private property because "property" includes the earth underneath as well. You can't dig through private property without permission and likely without compensation. Maybe the Supreme Court ruling from a couple of years ago might allow the underground rights to property to be seized. I'm not a lawyer, but I kind of doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 2, 2008 18:49:55 GMT -8
I like alternative 5 as well although I'm not convinced that we need a station just 2 blocks north of 7th/metro. It is part way up the hill so maybe that's the logic behind it.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 4, 2008 11:05:50 GMT -8
See attached sketch # 2 below. This is taken from the MIS of the 1993 Study of the Regional Connector. Sketch # 2The extra station is probably considered given that in order to tie in the existing Cut-cover tunnel around 6th/Flower to the new tunnel they will need to open up the street from 4th to 6th to properly connect two different tunnel design configurations for structural and seismic reasons. In the process of opening it up, they might as well consider having a station at that location or if a station can't work there a longer three track section ( see sketch # 1 from the previous post) for future train turnbacks and as a storage spot of trains that may break down in the tunnel during rush hour.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 8, 2008 9:20:54 GMT -8
Confirming Darrell's report from the other day.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 8, 2008 9:29:13 GMT -8
$800M seems low for a subway DTC. I wonder how realistic that figure is. If it is right on, it will be the best $800M MTA has ever spent as on the transit and ridership merits alone this has to be one of if not the most worthy public transit project in the country on a cost benefit basis.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 8, 2008 9:30:43 GMT -8
The Downtown Regional Connector is 1.5 miles long. I think they're escalating the figure for 5-10 years from now when they'll have funding to build it.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 11, 2008 23:18:22 GMT -8
I posted a summary of the remaining Alternatives 3B and 5, with maps updated from Metro's February presentation, here.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 19, 2008 19:14:08 GMT -8
I read on blogdowntown that currently Metro isn't planning on having trains travel on different routes. For example gold line trains won't travel to Long Beach, Santa Monica, and East LA, but will instead always go to one of those destinations whichever one that might be. Same for the other lines.
So what's it gonna be? Obviously gold line trains aren't going to East LA. We wouldn't need a connector for that. What would make the most sense is east/west and north/south, but operationally I think that a blue line/gold line pairing would be difficult due to different service levels and overall length. I guess they could change operators at each end, but they need to build a crew quarters. I'm guessing some compromise where gold line trains would run to Santa Monica and east LA to Long Beach. Too bad because Santa Monica will be the much preferred destination, especially for gold line riders.
Still if they did consider having multiple destinations from each line that would tend to make things easier operationally from my way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 19, 2008 22:52:14 GMT -8
Long Beach to Pasadena on one train! What a concept--Pacific Electric did that many, many years ago to connect two hotels (presumably for the Easterners escaping the cold). It will certainly be interesting to see how Metro does decide to operate once the DTC is finished; I'm sure a lot of us old-timers are hoping to be around to ride it. This was one of the weaknesses of PE: to get from Pasadena to Hollywood, one had to ride to 6th & Main, go to Subway Terminal (walk, cab or local streetcar) and then head out to Hollywood. Not sure how much of a hassle driving would have been in the pre-freeway days.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 20, 2008 6:24:54 GMT -8
I read on blogdowntown that currently Metro isn't planning on having trains travel on different routes. For example gold line trains won't travel to Long Beach, Santa Monica, and East LA, but will instead always go to one of those destinations whichever one that might be. Same for the other lines. So what's it gonna be? Obviously gold line trains aren't going to East LA. We wouldn't need a connector for that. What would make the most sense is east/west and north/south, but operationally I think that a blue line/gold line pairing would be difficult due to different service levels and overall length. I guess they could change operators at each end, but they need to build a crew quarters. I'm guessing some compromise where gold line trains would run to Santa Monica and east LA to Long Beach. Too bad because Santa Monica will be the much preferred destination, especially for gold line riders. Still if they did consider having multiple destinations from each line that would tend to make things easier operationally from my way of thinking. They could always make it all one color and give the trains destinations like A, B, or C. That way you can potentially get a one seat ride to many places. But I don't know how that would work operationally.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 20, 2008 10:10:24 GMT -8
I read on blogdowntown that currently Metro isn't planning What would make the most sense is east/west and north/south, but operationally I think that a blue line/gold line pairing would be difficult due to different service levels and overall length. I guess they could change operators at each end, but they need to build a crew quarters. I'm guessing some compromise where gold line trains would run to Santa Monica and east LA to Long Beach. Too bad because Santa Monica will be the much preferred destination, especially for gold line riders. Still if they did consider having multiple destinations from each line that would tend to make things easier operationally from my way of thinking. At the beginning, I would bet that they would run the Expo and SG Valley Gold Line operate as one route and Blue Line and East LA run as one route to evenly match the trip lengths {both of which end to end will be 30 miles} on the LRV's to reduce maintenance wear/tear and improve more likely connections. The Blue Line matching with East LA makes sense since both corridors aren't as dependant on a connection with Union Station as the Expo and SG Valley Gold Lines are, their main connection is at 7th Street Metro Center to reach the Red and Purple Lines. A good number of riders who work at or affiliated with USC live in the SG Valley near a Gold Line stop or require a connection with Metrolink at Union Station. In the future when the SG Valley Gold Line is extended to Azusa/Citrus College the route changes to where those trains will end in Downtown (that's if they build the three track section between Central Library and 7th Street Metro Center). Expo Line would now end at Chinatown to take advantage of the existing yard to switch trains and give operators a breakspace.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 20, 2008 22:42:53 GMT -8
A new post on BlogDowntown (via MetroRiderLA) shows three Metro images of 1st and Alameda with tracks rising from a portal at 2nd and Central and Alameda passing under 1st. Be sure to read the whole item; here's the first image (looking south, Little Tokyo Gold Line station on the lower right next to Alameda):
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 21, 2008 3:36:59 GMT -8
They could always make it all one color and give the trains destinations like A, B, or C. That way you can potentially get a one seat ride to many places. But I don't know how that would work operationally. There are a lot of ways to go with this. The easiest would be to schedule two lines that would remain static throughout the day, say Blue Line to Pasadena Gold Line and Expo Line to Eastside Gold Line. A more complex system would be to alternate trips, where a Blue Line trip alternates between Pasadena and East L.A., for example. There's little practical need for the latter. The average Metro Rail trip is about 8 miles ... so the end-to-end terminals don't add much apparent value to a trip.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 21, 2008 14:58:25 GMT -8
I knew the at-grade junction at First/Alameda would be messy, but jeez. Now I wonder if that alternative makes any sense.
I wish they could have the 2nd Street portion all underground (as in alternative 5), but have the junction at Alameda/Temple (as in alternative 3A).
IOW, the subway could head east on 2nd until San Pedro, head north on San Pedro to First, rise to the surface between First and Temple, head east on Temple, then junction at Temple/Alameda.
The big at-grade junction, with tunnel and rail criss-crossing intersection, has the potential of really making a huge mess.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 21, 2008 16:48:44 GMT -8
I knew the at-grade junction at First/Alameda would be messy, but jeez. Now I wonder if that alternative makes any sense. The problem is that the East LA Gold Line is under construction and there was no design insight of building a regional connector. That would cause even more headaches particularly for trains heading towards Union Station because Temple/Alameda is at an acute angle and the beginning of the incline of the rail bridge starts just north of crossing Temple Street. I was skeptical of that crossing design at first too but by grade separating Alameda it eliminates the bulk of the issues of left turns and high traffic on Alameda Street and it's close proximity to the 101 freeway/El Monte Busway off ramp. Thereby First Street is easier to manage because even during the high traffic periods the parking structures are facing away from First Street and there's sufficient road capacity on Temple and 2nd Street which would operate as an alternate so all that's needed is a timed traffic signal. Currently at First/Alameda the traffic lights go on a longer signal to Alameda Street traffic
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 21, 2008 20:28:19 GMT -8
The Metro illustration is exactly what I predicted many months ago when everyone was saying that the Little Tokyo station would have to be rebuilt! Well not exactly. What I don't see on the Metro illustration is an additional platform, or two, on 1st street east of Alameda. How are people going to and from East LA supposed to get on/off in Little Tokyo or transfer to Pasadena? I assume that East LA trains will use the connector. Are people supposed to go past Little Tokyo and then switch trains to reverse direction? Although the picture does show a Pasadena train headed to Little Tokyo I assume that won't be the normal direction. Otherwise we wouldn't need the connector.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 21, 2008 20:32:51 GMT -8
They could always make it all one color and give the trains destinations like A, B, or C. That way you can potentially get a one seat ride to many places. But I don't know how that would work operationally. There are a lot of ways to go with this. The easiest would be to schedule two lines that would remain static throughout the day, say Blue Line to Pasadena Gold Line and Expo Line to Eastside Gold Line. A more complex system would be to alternate trips, where a Blue Line trip alternates between Pasadena and East L.A., for example. There's little practical need for the latter. The average Metro Rail trip is about 8 miles ... so the end-to-end terminals don't add much apparent value to a trip. I tend to agree except I was wondering if the flexibility to run trains to different destinations might make it easier to coordinate for Metro. For example Expo will likely need more service than the current gold line. Rather than send all of those extra trains unnecessarily to Pasadena they can instead send some of them to East LA or Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 21, 2008 20:53:17 GMT -8
I tend to agree except I was wondering if the flexibility to run trains to different destinations might make it easier to coordinate for Metro. For example Expo will likely need more service than the current gold line. Rather than send all of those extra trains unnecessarily to Pasadena they can instead send some of them to East LA or Long Beach. That can be done just as easily with a fixed route alignment of East LA-Long Beach where both corridors will probably be of equal activity and Expo-Pasadena/SG Valley Gold Line instead of taking every train to Pasadena, trains would end midway at Chinatown since it is right near the main yard.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 21, 2008 20:55:07 GMT -8
The Metro illustration is exactly what I predicted many months ago when everyone was saying that the Little Tokyo station would have to be rebuilt! Well not exactly. What I don't see on the Metro illustration is an additional platform, or two, on 1st street east of Alameda. How are people going to and from East LA supposed to get on/off in Little Tokyo or transfer to Pasadena? I assume that East LA trains will use the connector. Are people supposed to go past Little Tokyo and then switch trains to reverse direction? Although the picture does show a Pasadena train headed to Little Tokyo I assume that won't be the normal direction. Otherwise we wouldn't need the connector. Send an email to Metro voicing that. In the TTC formal letter we suggested adding that station since there will be space to include such a platform since there will no longer be a left turn lane on the Eastside of First/Alameda.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 21, 2008 22:01:13 GMT -8
I tend to agree except I was wondering if the flexibility to run trains to different destinations might make it easier to coordinate for Metro. For example Expo will likely need more service than the current gold line. Rather than send all of those extra trains unnecessarily to Pasadena they can instead send some of them to East LA or Long Beach. That can be done just as easily with a fixed route alignment of East LA-Long Beach where both corridors will probably be of equal activity and Expo-Pasadena/SG Valley Gold Line instead of taking every train to Pasadena, trains would end midway at Chinatown since it is right near the main yard. Okay I missed that bit from your earlier post. I think that makes sense and we most likely will end up with something like that. Instead of turning trains in the yard there is also the option of turning trains one stop earlier at Union Station since the crew area is right there.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 21, 2008 22:07:40 GMT -8
So there really is no plan for another station for East LA riders? I thought maybe the illustration was in error. I'll send an email if you think that Metro reads such things. I've sent a few emails to Metro before and received what seemed like standard responses that didn't really indicate whether or not anyone even read my email. They didn't even respond to two or three emails where I had questions that I wanted them to answer.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 23, 2008 8:46:05 GMT -8
This is in reply to the picture that Darrell posted on the DDC at Alameda and First Steet. Well like this design or not. It is probably the best one around, I pity those living near this intersection, they just went through 3 years of construction woes, and not in the near future they got to go through it again. It looks like train service might be disrupted or brought to a halt when Alameda is lowered, Possibility of a Bus bridge for the next two or three years of the construction period. Look at the picture and think about it. Their going to have to lower Alameda Ave. first, and then build the train bridge to run at grade. It is my opinion that Metro will have to have a bus bridge and shut down Alameda Ave. This can be a bummer to all transportation advocates who like to go and take pictures. This will be another marvelous construction project, Just like the Memorial Station in Pasadena on the goldline where Metro craved out under an existing apartment building and built a train station! (Question or thought of the day--Does all this construction drive up the real estate prices or lower them? If it lowers them, then I wouldn't be surprised to hear of several SOCATA and TTC members buying condos at the new condo's in the area of First St. and Alameda! ) Sincerely The Roadtrainer P.S. If anyone is interested in the Goggle Maps go to the Bay Area and look the San Leandro (south of Oakland-Go RAIDERS!); and find the Bayfair Shopping Center. This is where the BART leave the Fremont Line and splits of going out the 580 to Dublin/Pleasanton. You will notice a train bridge where the BART crosses over the Bart and then goes down into a tunnel and comes out in the middle of the 580 freeway. Vveerryy iinntteerreessttiinngg
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 23, 2008 10:10:03 GMT -8
It looks like train service might be disrupted or brought to a halt when Alameda is lowered, Possibility of a Bus bridge for the next two or three years of the construction period. Look at the picture and think about it. Their going to have to lower Alameda Ave. first, and then build the train bridge to run at grade. It is my opinion that Metro will have to have a bus bridge and shut down Alameda Ave. I don't think Eastside Gold Line operations would be affected by construction just in the middle of Alameda. Those tracks don't cross the excavation. They'd probably put up K-rail barriers on Alameda, keeping the curb lane open in each direction. Drill holes along the sides of the trench and fill with concrete columns. Excavate the trench. Build the rail bridge. Finish the street in the trench. Shift traffic to the trench and (partially?) close the side lanes to rebuild them and lay rails. The Eastside Gold Line would be closed a short time to tie in new track switches, same as the Blue Line will be at Washington and Flower for Expo. P.S. If anyone is interested in the Goggle Maps go to the Bay Area and look the San Leandro (south of Oakland-Go RAIDERS!); and find the Bayfair Shopping Center. This is where the BART leave the Fremont Line and splits of going out the 580 to Dublin/Pleasanton. You will notice a train bridge where the BART crosses over the Bart and then goes down into a tunnel and comes out in the middle of the 580 freeway. Vveerryy iinntteerreessttiinngg I saw most of that driving west on the 580 once. They went to a lot of work to fit BART into that freeway median.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 23, 2008 19:26:04 GMT -8
LA Downtown NewsTransit Project Inches ForwardDowntown Regional Connector Down to Two Optionsby Anna Scott The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has narrowed down plans for its proposed Downtown Regional Connector to two options - a mostly street-level light rail line, or a subway... ( Link to new thread)
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 27, 2008 6:12:28 GMT -8
It looks like train service might be disrupted or brought to a halt when Alameda is lowered, Possibility of a Bus bridge for the next two or three years of the construction period. Look at the picture and think about it. Their going to have to lower Alameda Ave. first, and then build the train bridge to run at grade. It is my opinion that Metro will have to have a bus bridge and shut down Alameda Ave. I don't think Eastside Gold Line operations would be affected by construction just in the middle of Alameda. Those tracks don't cross the excavation. They'd probably put up K-rail barriers on Alameda, keeping the curb lane open in each direction. Drill holes along the sides of the trench and fill with concrete columns. Excavate the trench. Build the rail bridge. Finish the street in the trench. Shift traffic to the trench and (partially?) close the side lanes to rebuild them and lay rails. The Eastside Gold Line would be closed a short time to tie in new track switches, same as the Blue Line will be at Washington and Flower for Expo. ;D Darrell: I looked at the picture again, and have come to this conclusion-They Will have to stop all east bound trains at Union Station or Japan Town. And Westbound will probably stop at the new High School and bus bridges will be integrated. Alameda and First will have to be lowered first. First Street travels East and West and Alameda Ave. runs North and South. If the dig out under the train then How will they do it? It is not like a new underpass which was built recently in El Monte. There was room to move the Rail lines over and allow construction to proceed and railroad trains continued to do their business. But with the DTC there is no possible space allowed for the temporary railroad tracks, thereby it is my opinion that Goldline will have to stop at Union Station and the bus bridge Will RUN from In front of the new high school on First Street. Sincerely The RoadTrainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 27, 2008 8:42:56 GMT -8
Or they can operate the service temporarily on Weekends and Middays on a 12, 15 or 20 minute headway on Single track. If there are crossovers at the South end of Union Station AND before the Mariachi Plaza subway station they can do this work via single track operation on the line on a 12 minute headway. If the crossover is somewhere past Mariachi Plaza then we are looking at 20 minute operation with 3 car trains. Or another possibility is that they could install the two additional crossovers in conjunction with the Regional connector first before starting construction on the First/Alameda intersection.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 27, 2008 11:54:57 GMT -8
Alameda and First will have to be lowered first. First Street travels East and West and Alameda Ave. runs North and South. If the dig out under the train then How will they do it? First Street wouldn't be lowered, just Alameda. So no digging under and little interruption for the new Eastside Gold Line tracks.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 28, 2008 5:59:30 GMT -8
Alameda and First will have to be lowered first. First Street travels East and West and Alameda Ave. runs North and South. If the dig out under the train then How will they do it? First Street wouldn't be lowered, just Alameda. So no digging under and little interruption for the new Eastside Gold Line tracks. ;D Darrell: I think you're missing the point here: Alameda and First Street is an intersection You can't lower Alameda without lowering first Street Or it will be a three levels of Impossibilities. 1. Alameda is lowered. 2. First St. is not lowered 3. Crossing Gates will have TO BE INSTALLED so that Westbound/Eastbound automobiles and other traffic will have to stop and let the trains go by and that at possible headways of every two and a half minutes. So my point here is that this potential DTC will have a lowered intersection. And the trench here is both for Alameda and First. St. With a bus bridge. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 28, 2008 6:34:37 GMT -8
Roadtrainer what I don't understand is that since no trains will cross Alameda until all of this work is completed why do you say there will be a bus bridge? Any lowering of Alameda will happen before the connector opens and the gold line stays east of Alameda. Secondly even if first street is lowered on the east side of Alameda (and I really don't understand why you think that it would be) that wouldn't effect the gold line trains. That part isn't going to be lowered. The entire point of lowering Alameda is so that the trains can travel above Alameda.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 28, 2008 7:03:25 GMT -8
Alameda and First Street is an intersection You can't lower Alameda without lowering first Street Let's look at two of the illustrations from BlogDowntown: Looking south; the currently-under-construction Eastside Gold Line Little Tokyo station is next to Alameda in the lower-right corner. Looking south on Alameda, the Eastside Gold Line Little Tokyo station is on the left, 1st Street crossing is ahead. Four lanes of Alameda are shown below grade. One southbound lane of Alameda is shown still at-grade. The tracks and traffic lanes of 1st Street are shown at-grade. If you're driving west on 1st Street it doesn't look like you have any way to turn onto Alameda, you can only cross the tracks and continue west. If you're driving south on Alameda it looks like you could stay in the right lane and turn right (but not left, blocked by the median) onto 1st Street. It's hard to tell if any turns to/from Alameda south of 1st are possible. Drivers can go around the block to complete a turn, like they do on Bunker Hill.
|
|