|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 11, 2010 13:57:03 GMT -8
Jason, wouldn't you need to open up Figueroa at 7th for a cut-and-cover station, even if the tunneling is done by TBMs? I don't see how the TBMs would cross the red line. You would need to take them out and put them back in. And stations usually are built cut-and-cover.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 11, 2010 14:27:14 GMT -8
Yes, I dont quite understand where the signals will be and how they will work with the vehicle signals. Who will get priority? The Flower and Washington intersection signals can be pretty simple. I presume trains will follow regular signals - a two-phase 60- or 90-second cycle should be fine - and may need to stop at red lights there. Trains would pass through the intersection every 90 seconds on average with planned 6 minute peak-period headways. North- and south-bound train movements can coincide on one cycle except for south-bound Blue Line with north-bound Expo. And there is train queuing space on all three entrances to the intersection. All train movements are compatible with Flower's one-way south traffic. If left turns are still allowed from Flower onto Washington, they should get a green arrow at the same time as through traffic for Blue Line train movements, but a red arrow for Expo trains crossing Washington. Here's a map I posted here awhile ago showing sample locations of trains at six-minute headways.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 11, 2010 15:55:46 GMT -8
Jason, wouldn't you need to open up Figueroa at 7th for a cut-and-cover station, even if the tunneling is done by TBMs? I don't see how the TBMs would cross the red line. You would need to take them out and put them back in. And stations usually are built cut-and-cover. Yes, the Red Line does present a problem. You would have to tunnel underneath and build a new station box adjacent to the existing box. Just trying to think of a way to add an underground Pico Station (per this thread) that doesn't necessitate shutting down Blue/Expo for months. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 11, 2010 16:14:53 GMT -8
But trains don't keep exactly on schedule, especially at rush hour which is when most people ride. There will most certainly be bunching and whether reality or not, this junction will give riders the impression of slowness. And as we have see with the gold line, impression is reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 11, 2010 20:23:39 GMT -8
Darrell, I though Metro was planning for 4 or 5 minute headways at rush hour on both Expo and Blue. Is that just speculation on our part?
If any intersection in the system deserves signal preemption, this is the place. Drivers will quickly learn to avoid taking Washington across Flower during peak hours; Venice provides a better westbound alternative just 2 blocks north, and Adams is 1/2 mile south.
Things could be simplified and made safer, if needed, by closing westbound washington to car traffic before Flower, to prevent cars from crossing the path of turning trains. With both Flower and Washington as one-way streets (for cars) at the junction, signals could be shorter and train movements more reliable. It would also become easy to install quad gates (actually only 2 sets would be used) to further reduce the risk of cars getting in front of trains.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 11, 2010 21:00:54 GMT -8
Yes they are planning on 5 minute headways. He should have said 75 seconds, not 90 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 22, 2010 4:14:16 GMT -8
Just trying to think of a way to add an underground Pico Station (per this thread) that doesn't necessitate shutting down Blue/Expo for months. It's not insurmountable, but Metro will probably not go for it. I explained one way, which was to put temporary tracks above-ground on Flower, seal off the portal at 12th street, then extend the tracks over the tunnel. The trains will run above-ground until the tunnel beneath flower can be completed. Then the trains will be put below ground again. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2010 5:37:16 GMT -8
They can't just add tracks to Flower without doing everything that they would have to done to add permanent tracks. They would have to do all of the environmental reporting and even utility relocation. That seems like a large expense for temporary tracks. But I guess if we're talking hundreds of millions, whats an extra $100 million?
Also, I think that the platforms needed and the street capacity needed to turn trains at the terminal would be so inconveniencing to the streets (in one of downtowns busiest areas) that it would be hard to get approval for any such plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 22, 2010 7:03:16 GMT -8
I read a comment recently at Human Transit which claimed that part of the Portland streetcar was done without utility relocation. They only dug down a couple feet to lay the tracks in the street, leaving existing utilities in place. Of course, long-term this will be a problem when those utilities need to be repaired or replaced, causing disruption to the streetcar line.
For temporary tracks, utilities should be able to stay in place. There would be a need to address impacts in the EIR, but the temporary impacts of those tracks would be less important than a permanent rail line. The portals for tunneling and a cut-and-cover station would also be disruptive.
Not to say that Wad's idea wouldn't be expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2010 8:08:04 GMT -8
Yeah, I should have said perhaps even utility relocation. I'm not sure if or where they would even be relocated or how much there might be and how long the temporary tracks might be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 23, 2010 3:53:20 GMT -8
The easy way to build the tunnel is to just shut down the Flower Street tracks while construction proceeds. The downside is that Blue Line or Expo cannot enter downtown for 4-5 years.
The temporary surface tracks are there to maintain 7MC connections so service wouldn't have to be shut down. Even this would be cheaper than running bus bridges (not to mention operating costs rising as thousands begin to abandon the trains during construction).
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 23, 2010 7:43:43 GMT -8
What if the street crossing under Flower/Pico and Flower/Washington are lowered under the the rail? Would that need rail relocation (I imagine it would, but I do not understand how that is done) and be as disruptive as building a tunnel? Or would it be an even worse or impossible solution? It would have the same net result as building a tunnel, separating the rail line completely from traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 23, 2010 8:30:25 GMT -8
The issue for me is separating rail passengers and pedestrians from the trains and vehicle traffic on Flower. The vehicle traffic on 12th is relatively minor. Also lowering the road under the rail tracks would mean that cars could no longer turn on Flower. I still like the pedestrian tunnel and wider platform ideas from the first page. Even that would be a huge disruption for blue/expo riders.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 23, 2010 10:40:54 GMT -8
I see what you mean by pedestrian traffic, that will be a problem when Expo is up and running. I just think that a tunnel won't ever be created, or I should say, not for a very long time. The Pico station should be totally re-designed. It sucks that it is a center platform and not side by side platforms.
Of equal importance (in my opinion) is Flower and Olympic. Alternatives should be looked at like creating an underpasses. I don't know if it is even possible to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 23, 2010 11:34:19 GMT -8
The Pico station should be totally re-designed. It sucks that it is a center platform and not side by side platforms. Alternatives should be looked at like creating an underpasses. I don't know if it is even possible to do. The "side platforms" can still work out while keeping the existing platform. All we would need to do is add a second platform for Northbound ONLY trains towards Downtown and East LA/Pasadena and the current platform gets reused as a Southbound ONLY platform for trains towards Expo/Santa Monica and Long Beach. The location of this new platform can be used by taking the lightly used sidewalk along the eastside of Flower Street to reduce the platform crowding for passengers on one platform and split it into two platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 23, 2010 12:36:35 GMT -8
I see what you mean by pedestrian traffic, that will be a problem when Expo is up and running. I just think that a tunnel won't ever be created, or I should say, not for a very long time. The Pico station should be totally re-designed. It sucks that it is a center platform and not side by side platforms. Of equal importance (in my opinion) is Flower and Olympic. Alternatives should be looked at like creating an underpasses. I don't know if it is even possible to do. I agree. When they released the final Expo phase 1 eir, I remember commenting on the old forum that I hoped that they would include Pico as a "Gateway" station and redesign it similar to the proposed Phase 1 gateway stations.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 23, 2010 19:37:17 GMT -8
When they released the final Expo phase 1 eir, I remember commenting on the old forum that I hoped that they would include Pico as a "Gateway" station and redesign it similar to the proposed Phase 1 gateway stations. It is potentially a big-time transfer station. Initially these will be turn-back transfers: for example, Long Beach - Pico - Santa Monica. This will require the center platform. Otherwise people will have to exit the station to get to the other side. Once the Connector opens, there will be transfers of people going the same direction as well, for example, switching lines but still heading toward Downtown. At that point, the station will be very busy, and a three-platform design might make a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 23, 2010 19:53:06 GMT -8
Although, transfers will be possible on any of the stations along the downtown connector, so if Pico is too crowded, people could transfer at 7th, or since that will probably be quite crowded also, at the Central Library station.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 23, 2010 23:28:33 GMT -8
True. Turn-back transfers (as I defined them) would still happen at Pico, because nobody will want to go to 7th-Metro just to turn back.
I really do think though, the biggest problems for Pico will come on game days. Expo is going to add a ton more fans to Pico Station at the beginning and ending of each game. If it gets very crowded, the platform could get dangerous, and this could lead to demands for immediate expansion of the station.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 24, 2010 4:29:16 GMT -8
Of equal importance (in my opinion) is Flower and Olympic. Alternatives should be looked at like creating an underpasses. I don't know if it is even possible to do. I am with you here. If Metro undergrounds the train, an additional station should be created at Olympic. For one, it creates redundancy so not everyone would be packed at Pico station. Second, it reaches the south end of the Financial District and the north end of South Park. Its proximity to L.A. Live would help at other hours, too. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 24, 2010 4:32:52 GMT -8
I really do think though, the biggest problems for Pico will come on game days. Metro already has experienced that scenario. There are a couple days of the year where the Blue Line has to serve the "trifecta": Both a day and a night game at the Staples Center and a public event at the Convention Center, such as the Auto Show. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 24, 2010 9:12:06 GMT -8
I am with you here. If Metro undergrounds the train, an additional station should be created at Olympic. For one, it creates redundancy so not everyone would be packed at Pico station. Second, it reaches the south end of the Financial District and the north end of South Park. Its proximity to L.A. Live would help at other hours, too. When Pico station is undergrounded (eventually, it will), the statino should be under Flower between Olympic and 11th street with 2 portals leading to both Flower & Olympic (eastside of the street by 717 Olympic or the new Luxe Hotel) and Flower & 11th (again eastside by the future Jardin residential building) for easy access to Staples and the LA Convention Center. Then, there would be no need for a station between 11th & 12th, where it is currently. The new station placement would serve as more convenient access to LA Live! and Staples Center. LA Convention Center would just deserve another block of a walk... |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 24, 2010 14:04:17 GMT -8
Then, there would be no need for a station between 11th & 12th, where it is currently. Actually it's between 12th and Pico. Hence the name "Pico Station". |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 24, 2010 17:05:18 GMT -8
Actually it's between 12th and Pico. Hence the name "Pico Station". Good catch. Hopefully with this proposed revamped station..the new name will be Chick Hearn/Staples Center station. That would be ideal.... |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 24, 2010 22:10:11 GMT -8
It would be over 3/4 of a mile from Grand station to a new station between Olympic and 11th, and even farther to the 23rd st station on Expo.
As long as we are building a tunnel, would suggest a new subway station between Olympic and 11th, and another station between Pico and Venice. These stations would be just under 1/2 mile apart, so all points along the line in South Park would be a reasonable 5 minute walk from a station, and no bus connection would be more than a 2 minute, 1 block walk away (Venice being the farthest)
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 3, 2010 1:41:56 GMT -8
Well in terms of just improving Pico Station's capacity, the " Spanish Solution" might do the trick. This would simply involve keeping the center platform for transfers, and adding side platforms for entering and exiting the station. All trains arriving at Pico would open doors on both sides. Of course, this would require property acquisition and reduction of street lanes. But I think this will be necessary, because this is going to be one busy station. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 3, 2010 6:39:22 GMT -8
The Spanish Solution seems to me to be the best solution at Pico. It will no doubt lead to confusion, but it is proven to work. Taking the Pico station underground is just not going to be happening (IMHO). The Washington Flower intersection remains as a potential problem that will not be fully understood until Expo is up and running.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 3, 2010 19:47:22 GMT -8
How many people will really use the Pico Station at any one moment?
Right now, it is not used heavily - even during Laker, Clipper or Kings games when they end. And, many of those riders are going to Metrocenter. When Expo starts... twice as much service will be provided... to Metrocenter.
Other than those events, will so many people use the Blue or Expo line to transfer to the other line that there is not enough room? Certainly transfers will occur; however, not at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jul 7, 2022 8:42:28 GMT -8
With metro staff seemingly moving forward with the WP1 for the Washington/Flower junction improvement. It seems likely the that underground pico station will happen (provided funding can be found). I doubt the community will approve the aerial version. la.urbanize.city/post/looking-metros-options-fixing-flower-streetBased on the motion from April 2022 (that was tabled) metro was looking at Olympics funds to do this potential project. But trying to get this done before the Olympics would be very challenging not to mention potential disruption to operations of a newly opened regional connector. Also I'm not sure if they can avoid doing a full EIR to grade separate one station. |
|
