|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 13, 2007 16:01:49 GMT -8
Sorry, I couldn't find another thread for this topic. But imagine what we can do if Metrolink stations and tracks can go subterranean. We can see more stations in densely populated areas without having to worry about ROW or eminent domain. The problem is the diesel fumes, unhealthy for passengers and people standing on the platforms. dude, you can always make a new topic. there's a little button down at the bottom of the page for doing that  but no big deal. anyhoo, I agree that underground Metrolink tunnels and stations would be awesome - if we could afford it! going underground would almost certainly mean electrification, and the combined costs of tunneling + electric wires and equipment= a huge price tag. but it is something that other cities have done, and it might be something we will want to think about in the future |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 13, 2007 20:59:02 GMT -8
This proposal appears to involve building a subway-style station in the Newhall Tunnel between Sylmar and Santa Clarita. Nearest thing that comes to mind is the Portland light rail station in the middle of their tunnel which has an elevator to the zoo. It probably could be done, but don't bet the ranch on it. Some challenges: When the tunnel was built over 130 years ago (yes, that old) it was a tunnel builder's nightmare. Ground water flooded into the work area, weird rock formations collapsed, and pockets of petroleum added to the mix. Perhaps modern construction equipment would make it a little easier and safer, but it would still be a nasty job. Then there's the necessity of keeping present rail service running. Also, much more powerful ventilation would be required because of the diesel power used here. Philadelphia has a downtown suburban railway tunnel, but it's all-electric.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 14, 2007 22:35:29 GMT -8
Underground rail might actually be something that has to be done for some corridors. Long portions of the following transportation corridors might have go underground and may even have to be electrified (whether it be Metrolink, Amtrak, or CA HSR) should they be proposed and built:
Bakersfield - SoCal
Temecula - Escondido
SoCal - Phoenix via I-10 corridor
Corona - Irvine via the Santa Ana Mountain Tunnel project
San Diego - El Centro
|
|
vnc
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by vnc on Aug 16, 2007 18:38:42 GMT -8
Well. That Tunnel would need more work done on it. The track bed is shot. And I do not recall that tunnel being up to Semis code yet. That alone would cost a lot of money. And would drive the cost of the Station higher.
|
|
vnc
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by vnc on Aug 17, 2007 14:43:13 GMT -8
I just saw the YouTube and the story from KTLA own web site. Personally. I would not want to live in a semic zone. Like at I-5 & 14. I think they should look elsewhere to build. Instead on a top of a mountain. And too Bart Reed. Good piece you gave on this Story.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 21, 2007 9:01:03 GMT -8
Underground rail might actually be something that has to be done for some corridors. Long portions of the following transportation corridors might have go underground and may even have to be electrified (whether it be Metrolink, Amtrak, or CA HSR) should they be proposed and built: Bakersfield - SoCal Temecula - Escondido SoCal - Phoenix via I-10 corridor Corona - Irvine via the Santa Ana Mountain Tunnel project San Diego - El Centro well.... building tunnels is one thing; building an underground station within that tunnel is another thing. for example, consider that Bakersfield to SoCal idea. the current plan is for High Spped Rail to have a stop in Palmdale, presumably near the airport. you would need to build tunnels between Bakersfield and Antelope Valley and new tunnels between Palmdale and Los Angeles, but there would be little need for the Palmdale station to be underground. the same would go for the other tunnels you mentioned. in any case, tunnels are a fairly expensive proposition, so I hope you'll excuse me for taking a "wait and see" attitude on most of these ideas  |
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 21, 2007 22:50:51 GMT -8
I don't think any of the alignments that I posted would require an underground station burried within a mountain. Yes, it will be expensive and time consuming to build tunnels under the mountains (some might not even be possible to drill through), but going underground might be something to think about. I certainly support in-depth studies on projects like this to see if they will even work (ie. addressing issues regarding earthquakes, airing out fumes from the train); I'm not a fan of taking shortcuts for planning big projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 28, 2007 10:46:58 GMT -8
I think the time will come when we will need to start seriously thinking about building more tunnels- obviously when high speed rail construction starts, then Metrolink will almost certainly be affected.
hopefully, Metrolink will even be able to take advantage of whatever new routes that the HSR creates. tunnels will have obvious advantages; they straighten out all of the curves on a mountain pass and eliminate steep grades, build a tunnel and you automatically make a train ride faster and smoother. I don't necessarily oppose the idea, with the caveat that we are dealing with limited budgets.
however, the subject at hand was the idea of underground stations, which is where a lot of people draw the line. sections of the London underground were built prior to electrification, and those tunnels continue to be smoky today.
|
|
but no big deal.
