|
Post by Philip on Dec 4, 2010 16:53:07 GMT -8
I'm sure this has probably been mentioned, but has anyone brought up the necessity of keeping the at-grade Little Tokyo station so that we have a method of connecting this future line to Union Station?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 4, 2010 22:13:31 GMT -8
That map from the SCAG presentation that Trackman provided almost appears to show the line possibly following the Alameda Corridor.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 4, 2010 23:21:48 GMT -8
If this is a SCAG project, does it mean LAC and OC have already committed themselves to the project? What if OC suddenly decides to turn their portion of the route into a free standing carpool lane, monorail (w/Disneyland interface), or old time cable car? Maybe these are questions I need to ask at the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 5, 2010 1:16:17 GMT -8
I haven't been keeping up to date on that corridor, but I do remember that a long time ago, SCAG was calling that the Orange Line project. They had planned on building a regional Maglev system. This was like 8 or more years ago. Well before even HSR was a semi-formal project. The reason why Maglev might still be mentioned is maybe because they never updated that old study, and are now re-doing it given the amount of time that has elapsed, combined with all the new light rail and HSR developments. Just thinking out loud here. I had been following that for a long time, and this discussion reminded me of it. It's still technically alive. See Orangeline Development Authority. Sigh....
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 5, 2010 14:06:57 GMT -8
^ But the fact that it has received little or no media attention means it probably has less than a 1% chance of happening.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 5, 2010 16:05:07 GMT -8
^ But the fact that it has received little or no media attention means it probably has less than a 1% chance of happening. The inland cities of the Gateway rarely get any media attention. That is no indication of whether or not this project is likely. This project is definitely happening. The project is on everybody's agenda. It is being organized by SCAG, but Metro and OCTA are both involved. The Orangeline website is being updated regularly, and has links to SCAG, Metro, Caltrans, and all of the cities along the route. Unfortunately, the Orangeline Authority's focus seems to be on grade-separated high-speed rail. HSR would have too few stops to be useful for most people along the route (it would mostly benefit very long distance commuters). However, SCAG is conducting the alternatives analysis, and I'm fairly confident they will see that LRT or DMU/EMU are more logical choices for the corridor.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 5, 2010 16:39:14 GMT -8
^ I think you misinterpreted me. When I mean this probably had less than a 1% chance of happening, I meant as a maglev project.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 5, 2010 17:04:59 GMT -8
Assuming my previous remark about this project not having any dedicated funding was incorrect, whereas someone else pointed out that $240 million is identified from Measure R, And, The distance from a hypothetical Garfield transfer station with the Green Line down to the County Line with Orange at about 8 miles total, ... it would seem that a large chunk of the funding for the LA segment is available. Of course, this assumes the econony has not affected Measure R forecasts/reciepts over the life of the Measure, and that a hypothetical Garfield Station with the Green Line is possible, and, at a relatively nominal cost. Note... I-105 may need to be widened so-as to allow a Green Line platfrom and access. And, a widening of I-105 will have downstream impacts. I am also assuming the alignments on the below map from the Green Line to downtown are to point out possible alignments for conceptual purposes and are not apart of THIS project... at this time. If those alignments were, then certianly there is not enough funding currently identified. And, only if ridership forecasts are abundant would the Feds participate. I say this because elsewhere in the SCAG presentation was a hypothetical funding source chart indicating a 50% match.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 6, 2010 9:55:05 GMT -8
Assuming my previous remark about this project not having any dedicated funding was incorrect, whereas someone else pointed out that $240 million is identified from Measure R, And, The distance from a hypothetical Garfield transfer station with the Green Line down to the County Line with Orange at about 8 miles total, ... it would seem that a large chunk of the funding for the LA segment is available. I had mentioned the $240 million, which is in the Measure R Expenditure Plan. But at the meeting, the presenters said Measure R was contributing over $600 million toward this. And of course Orange County would be expected to contribute quite a bit as well. They also said they would expect to receive federal matching funds.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 6, 2010 11:37:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 6, 2010 13:36:15 GMT -8
According to the project team, the line would be operated as a single continuous line. At this point, nothing is in stone, since the project is in such an early phase. In particular, the line's operator has not yet been chosen. It partly depends on the mode/technology. If it's a sprinter-like DMU or HSR, it might be operated by a joint-powers authority. If it is LRT, operations might fall to Metro, which already has robust light-rail infrastructure and experience.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 6, 2010 17:07:01 GMT -8
I think this project has a lot of hurdles to clear before it becomes a reality; however, if it does, it'll be a coup for transit advocates such as ourselves to see light rail transit in the land of automobiles and super-freeways! It would also help unify SoCal.
Politics and funding appear to be the main hurdles from my observation point. I don't know if the funding bodies have been forth-right about expected tax receipts with this economy. Yes, everything is cyclical and things can turn-around. Politics too.. Orange County seems to want more freeways and suburban expansion. It also does not seem to have a true city-centre.
If we do see a line on this corridor, I bet each county will want to have ability to increase or decrease service at or near the county line - not for ridership per se, but to have more say-so or flexibility on operations and costs. Just thinking ahead for the sake of entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 6, 2010 17:50:27 GMT -8
Assuming my previous remark about this project not having any dedicated funding was incorrect, whereas someone else pointed out that $240 million is identified from Measure R, And, The distance from a hypothetical Garfield transfer station with the Green Line down to the County Line with Orange at about 8 miles total, ... it would seem that a large chunk of the funding for the LA segment is available. I had mentioned the $240 million, which is in the Measure R Expenditure Plan. But at the meeting, the presenters said Measure R was contributing over $600 million toward this. And of course Orange County would be expected to contribute quite a bit as well. They also said they would expect to receive federal matching funds. How does that work? I think it pretty clearly states $240M in Measure R. Not sure how we get to $600M like that, although it would be great if it did. Lets call me skeptical. Like I said before, I think the whole Measure R funding scheme is a little more up in the air than it seems. Does 30/10 happen? Do the republicans cut off federal funding/New Starts. If the Purple Line gets New Starts money what happens to the additional $1.4B?, will there really be big cost savings in the construction budget of certain projects (we'll find out with Expo Phase II shortly), etc...
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 7, 2010 0:42:25 GMT -8
Am I understanding that OC and LAC have already committed themselves to this? I had to look up what SCAG was (Southern California Association of Governments). Still, I'm not clear on what SCAG's purpose is as an entity. Let's say OC pulls out of the project, but the incorporated cities in OC along the ROW still want it: what happens? Can this even happen? How much money is OC even putting into this if anything? Is LAC stuck paying $240 million in Measure R funds if the project goes through as MagLev and LAC does not agree with the technology chosen for the project? My head is now spinning....
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 7, 2010 6:28:32 GMT -8
I would assume that Metro/LACMTA would honor whatever the SCAG adopts from the study. But, it is only an AA study. It is not a DEIR/DEIS and so forth. The AA study will recommend a mode and suggested alignments for further study.
And, I bet the $240million is only linked to that portion of the Santa Ana Branch from the County line to the Green line and so forth. Orange County must be responsible for portions in their county. Operational cost... Some type of cost sharing agreement would need to be in order. After all, it wouldn't be fair to one county or the other if the opposite county paid a lions share of the operating cost.
Either way, many steps are still before this project before there can be a commitment to doing it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 7, 2010 9:05:29 GMT -8
While this project is being coordinated by SCAG, both Metro and OCTA would have to agree to provide their fair share of the funding. If either entity were to say no, there would not be enough money to complete the job.
The first step is to narrow the alternatives. Then the environmental study will begin, along with the deal-making between SCAG, Metro and OCTA for both construction costs and operational considerations.
The $240 million figure is in 2008 dollars. And as for the $600 million, which was stated as the Measure R funding at the community meeting, I have a feeling that number was "year of expenditure" dollars, i.e., the equivalent dollars in 2027.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 21, 2011 17:09:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gary Barsch on Sept 5, 2018 21:43:21 GMT -8
Any thought of a rail line between Santa Ana and Long Beach? Properly routed, this line may take numerous cars off Cal 22. This would probably reduce the volume of auto traffic on the "Orange Crush" intersect of the Cal 22 & I-5, which cars back up east bound to Harbor Blvd. I would like to see this route be on a private right of way with NO cross traffic or street traffic to compete with automobiles. Station stops about 3 miles apart, with buses feeding the rail traffic. I am disappointed in the Blue Line from Willow Street to First Street station, in that the trolley must obey traffic signals, which give no meaning to "Rapid" in Rapid Transit.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 6, 2018 8:33:08 GMT -8
Any thought of a rail line between Santa Ana and Long Beach? Properly routed, this line may take numerous cars off Cal 22. This would probably reduce the volume of auto traffic on the "Orange Crush" intersect of the Cal 22 & I-5, which cars back up east bound to Harbor Blvd. I would like to see this route be on a private right of way with NO cross traffic or street traffic to compete with automobiles. Station stops about 3 miles apart, with buses feeding the rail traffic. I am disappointed in the Blue Line from Willow Street to First Street station, in that the trolley must obey traffic signals, which give no meaning to "Rapid" in Rapid Transit. Orange County is not interested in rail. This would be DOA.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 7, 2018 15:50:22 GMT -8
Here is Metro’s P3 market sounding report for the West Santa Ana Branch line—a P3 may involve a DBFOM contract, construction in phases, with rolling stock included in contract. Interlining creates issues but is not insurmountable. There likely would not be a TOD element (the contractor does not develop real estate at the station locations, leaving Metro to do that separately). lametro.nextrequest.com/documents/788248/download
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 7, 2018 22:01:46 GMT -8
Additional details found in this report:
Metro intends to apply for Federal New Starts funding for Phase 2:
Seems they would break it up into phases that would connect with other lines, but there are pros/cons to starting with the north section vs. starting with the south section. Though it seems they are in favor of starting with the north section.
Tunneling and limited funding may be challenges:
|
|
|
Post by JHBW__ on Sept 9, 2018 7:33:11 GMT -8
They have to choose phase 1 first and go with a single bore tunnel; its the only way to make it work, and a perfect opportunity to introduce the technology.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 26, 2018 11:47:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 9, 2018 15:59:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 10, 2018 12:47:40 GMT -8
On the one hand, skipping the Blue Line stations provides an almost-express type service to Downtown or Union Station.
On the other hand, it forces anyone at those two stations going north to have to go south to Slauson and transfer.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Nov 11, 2018 7:40:13 GMT -8
Who's idea was it to create a separate alignment for the WSAB parallel to the blue line anyways? I support express service and 4-tracking in concept, but considering the limited budget, i'd much rather see the money spent on more stations, perhaps in the two-mile gaps through residential districts and past major boulevards. Interlining is the obvious choice so I find it hard to believe that the 4-track idea developed on its own.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Magruder on Nov 11, 2018 21:36:54 GMT -8
How much flexibility would the Slauson Station have? That is, (using northbound as example) could a train from Long Beach shift to the new line for an express run north and could a train from the West Santa Ana line shift to the existing northbound Blue Line for a local run to Los Angeles? Would the Slauson Station provide cross-platform transfers between the two lines?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 11, 2018 22:20:06 GMT -8
How much flexibility would the Slauson Station have? That is, (using northbound as example) could a train from Long Beach shift to the new line for an express run north and could a train from the West Santa Ana line shift to the existing northbound Blue Line for a local run to Los Angeles? Would the Slauson Station provide cross-platform transfers between the two lines? The studies haven't gotten to that level of detail yet, but it seems like they do not plan to connect the two lines. In the 2015 technical refinement study, the Slauson station would be a new station next to the current Blue Line station, so it wouldn't be a cross-platform transfer. If they plan to give the West Santa Ana line to a private company to operate it as part of a P3, it'll probably be even less likely for the lines to be connected, as they prefer to have completely segregated lines. A P3 doesn't make it impossible to have interlining, though--just more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2018 9:58:30 GMT -8
This should be designed with four elevated tracks from Slauson to Washington, with elevated stops for all four lines at Slauson and Washington, and an elevated Blue Line stop at Vernon.
The four-track section from Slauson to Washington should absolutely allow interlining. At an absolute minimum, they need to include a full interlocking just past Slauson station, so that trains can easily move between the two lines.
I too am in favor of faster movement of trains as we get closer to Downtown. But eliminating the Washington stop and interlining is so short-sighted, for two main reasons. First, in the future, Metro may find another routing that works better than the one they currently envision. And second, interlining would allow service on the Blue Line to continue in the event of a major outage on the Washington Blvd. section (for instance, if they decided to rebuild the Washington tracks).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2018 10:04:51 GMT -8
Also: $6.6 billion! Holy cripes!!!
|
|