|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2021 14:01:47 GMT -8
Metro staff prefers Alternative G that goes to Metro Center because it makes sense, both from operation and passenger destination standpoint; it also adds wholesale district station to the rail network which will get plenty of use. The preliminary study shows vast majority of WASB riders will end up in Western and Southern part of DTLA (financial district and wholesale district), USC, Santa Monica and West LA/UCLA area and only a handful of riders will go to Pasadena and SGV. But the politicians (none of them uses Metro) all want Alternative E to near Union Station because they don't understand the geography of the rail system. Because of the political support, there is strong inertia to end the line 1/4 mile in front of Union Station since there is no room at Union Station to actually accommodate WASB. If Alternative E is confirmed in EIR, it means 1/2 mile walk to transfer to Red line to back track to the final destination of most of the riders.   You can see that based on this map, the WASB priority for Metro should be: 1. Provide direct access wholesale and financial districts that doesn't require a transfer. 2. Make sure there is an easy one-seat transfer from WASB to both Wilshire and Expo line for the significant portion of riders going to USC and West LA. Going to Union Station like the politicians want means #1 goal is gone... you HAVE to transfer to get to financial district. And it is also terrible for #2 because it doesn't provide one-seat transfer to Expo and will result in a huge time-wasting backtrack and 1/2 mile walk to transfer to Wilshire line. Copying this excellent post in the WSAB section to continue the discussion where I can remember it. Based on where I currently live, I would personally find the 7th/metro terminus the most useful, but I don't know that I agree with the LAUS terminus option being a misunderstanding of rail geography or commute patterns. I see both options as hugely beneficial for different reasons. We can't predict the future, but we have to try with transit because we're building lines that are expected to last at least the rest of the century. When CAHSR becomes a reality, when Metrolink is more useful, when high speed trains are going to LV, Union Station will be like LA's version of Penn Station. Maybe even busier. LAUS is going to be a huge destination with 4 or 5 times the ridership that it has now. I think that it will be a place that metro riders will want to go and I don't think that we will have the capacity to get them there. B and D trains can only run a combined 30 trains per hour. That's a lot but only 2.5 times more than now. The A trains will only run 12 trains per hour in each direction. That won't be enough for the demand that will be there. LAUS will be short on capacity, but 7th/metro won't. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2021 20:24:47 GMT -8
To me, the decision boils down to this:
Do you think Gateway Cities residents will want direct ride to financial and wholesale districts and easy 1-seat transfer to West LA which they will use everyday in their commute?
Or
Do you think Gateway Cities residents will want easy 1-seat transfer to CAHSR/Metrolink/Desert West which they may use perhaps once a month (if that frequent)?
I think planning for the first one makes a lot more sense than the second one.
If and when CAHSR get to Union Station and Metrolink is electrified, you also have to think about where those passengers are going. I'm just being honest here... Gateway Cities is probably not the main destination of most people arriving on Metrolink from Ventura/Lancaster/San Bernardino/Orange County or NorCal via CAHSR - they are most likely headed to financial district or West LA. And if you are going to Cerritos or Artesia, you can take CAHSR to Norwalk... no need to transfer to WASB at Union Station. So in my opinion, outbound transfer demand from Union station to WASB is going to be low. The only reason you would want WASB to go near Union Station is if will be extended north/west out of Union Station on Sunset/Santa Monica. That segment will probably see significant transfer demand to/from Metrolink and CAHSR.
But speaking of extending WASB to the West side, what applies to WASB also applies to those western extension options... I see three viable choices for extending WASB beyond DTLA: Glendale via Alvarado, Venice Beach via Venice Blvd, Century City via Santa Monica/Sunset. Most people taking Metro from northwest (e.g Alvarado to Glendale) and west side (Venice Blvd or Santa Monica/Sunset) want to go to Metro Center or wholesale district where the jobs are not Union Station. So we are back to the same argument... do you build the line for occasional transfers to CAHSR or do you build it for everyday commute?
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 7, 2021 9:01:59 GMT -8
With Metro seeking recommendations from COG's for 'strategic unfunded' projects, I do expect a yellow line concept to glendale to make it in the list (same as in 2009), but this time as a northern extension of the WSAB.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Apr 7, 2021 13:56:17 GMT -8
7th is clearly better than LAUS, but I really don't like concentrating all the transfer traffic from light rail onto a single platform on the HRT subway. Pershing Square would be a better place to connect, with future extensions (Glendale or Century City as described by bzcat above) hitting either 2nd/Hope or 2nd/Broadway for transfers to Pasadena/East LA.
The interesting Metrolink transfers beyond the 2-3 lines that already serve LAUS aren't going to be at LAUS, they're going to be at Norwalk/Glendale/Burbank/BUR/Van Nuys/Claremont/Santa Ana/somewhere in the South Bay if we expand Metrolink down there; the first three serving two Metrolink lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 8, 2021 12:23:14 GMT -8
If they built WSAB to 7th/Metro, I would hope they would take it up 8th to Figueroa, and then turn north and terminate at 7th/Figueroa, a block west of the A Line. This way, they could easily connect the existing LRT mezzanine to it.
But I doubt they could make that turn at 8th/Fig, given the number of tall buildings (with deep foundations) near there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 8, 2021 15:10:27 GMT -8
Most preliminary map for Alt G shows the line going west on 8th but they don't show if the line will terminate on Figueroa or on 8th. I would think that for purpose of eventual extension west towards either Venice, Sunset, or Alvarado, having the tail track pointing west is ideal rather than north on Figueroa. The close proximity to the Blue/Expo tunnel and 110 freeway means there is very little option to maneuver the line on Figueroa thru Bunker Hill. All three possible extension options will certainly require WASB to cross 110 freeway at 8th before turning north (to Alvarado or Sunset) or south (to Pico or Venice).  I drew it out in Google Maps...  |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 8, 2021 15:45:59 GMT -8
Most preliminary map for Alt G shows the line going west on 8th but they don't show if the line will terminate on Figueroa or on 8th. I would think that for purpose of eventual extension west towards either Venice, Sunset, or Alvarado, having the tail track pointing west is ideal rather than north on Figueroa. I like Alt G, too bad this was a missed opportunity for Metro to study using this tunnel also for Blue Line trains and could replace the street running on Washington Blvd. This can be split where one line continues west towards Glendale and the other line ties into the existing Flower Street tunnel. Another benefit for this consideration would eliminate the junction at Washington/Flower as now Expo Line will be the only line crossing Washington Blvd. |
|
|
|
Post by joquitter on Apr 9, 2021 9:07:51 GMT -8
Anyone please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Metro looking at terminating the WSAB at Union Station to that patchy area to the East of the Metropolitan Water District and West of the Gold Line Station?  |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 9, 2021 9:43:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 9, 2021 10:38:40 GMT -8
I thought that was a "design option"? Like the Little Tokyo transfer station. Both of which was unlikely to survive EIR process. And didn't all the existing Union Station stakeholders (Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR) told Metro that was not a good location and they don't support it?  The default station location for Alt-E is under Alameda as shown here. This is why Alt-G was developed - to address the problem with transfer to D and E lines.  |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 9, 2021 10:59:12 GMT -8
I thought that was a "design option"? Like the Little Tokyo transfer station. Both of which was unlikely to survive EIR process. And didn't all the existing Union Station stakeholders (Metrolink, Amtrak, CAHSR) told Metro that was not a good location and they don't support it? I think they eliminated terminating at the current platforms in response to the railroad stakeholders. Based on this document, they moved the default Union Station terminus further east of Alameda: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6732744&GUID=D855794F-F587-4911-B693-59F0FB7DA467I don't think they ever explained in a written document why there was this design option to be next to the MWD building. I had thought it was because there were issues with putting it in front of Union Station, but now seeing how close it is to the other platforms, it could also be that someone asked them to keep studying a way to put it as close as possible to the train platforms. If they terminate at this spot, it does look like it would cost a mountain of money and cause a lot of disruption at Union Station to extend the line further, but unfortunately, I don't think they study the potential costs of future expansions that are not formally in the works. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 9, 2021 11:12:43 GMT -8
I think they eliminated terminating at the current platforms in response to the railroad stakeholders. Based on this document, they moved the default Union Station terminus further east of Alameda: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6732744&GUID=D855794F-F587-4911-B693-59F0FB7DA467I don't think they ever explained in a written document why there was this design option to be next to the MWD building. I had thought it was because there were issues with putting it in front of Union Station, but now seeing how close it is to the other platforms, it could also be that someone asked them to keep studying a way to put it as close as possible to the train platforms. If they terminate at this spot, it does look like it would cost a mountain of money and cause a lot of disruption at Union Station to extend the line further, but unfortunately, I don't think they study the potential costs of future expansions that are not formally in the works. There is a lot to unpack in the document you posted. The station location just off Alameda is ok but still a long walk to transfer to B and D lines. The location behind MWD building has shorter walk but will preclude all future extension option. I'm not sure that's a good trade off. They are still looking at Little Tokyo which is good. If transfer to E line can be made here, it's a win. The default design has no transfer station here. They seem to suggest they are eliminating Vernon and Washington stations. That means WASB will run express from Slauson to Alameda/7th street. I actually think this is an improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 9, 2021 18:51:34 GMT -8
Most preliminary map for Alt G shows the line going west on 8th but they don't show if the line will terminate on Figueroa or on 8th. I would think that for purpose of eventual extension west towards either Venice, Sunset, or Alvarado, having the tail track pointing west is ideal rather than north on Figueroa. The close proximity to the Blue/Expo tunnel and 110 freeway means there is very little option to maneuver the line on Figueroa thru Bunker Hill. All three possible extension options will certainly require WASB to cross 110 freeway at 8th before turning north (to Alvarado or Sunset) or south (to Pico or Venice). I drew it out in Google Maps... Explain to me why this lines expansion would be westward toward Venice or Sunset? Granted they both deserve lines well off into the future - but wouldn’t the smarter expansion route be (1) Union Station to Glendale to North Hollywood (connect with the Orange Line as one single line) or (2) Pershing Square to 2nd/Broadway to Hope St to NFigueroa to West Sunset (w/stop at Vin Scully Ave 3 min walk to Dodger Stadium) to Glendale Blvd to Downtown Glendale to North Hollywood to connect to the Orange Line. Seems to make the most sense to me? Question: What will the transfers look like? If they go to Pershing Square will be be directly connected to the station like built next to it or underneath it? If it goes to 7th Metro Center will be going directly into it or some awful walking transfer? Same with the Union Station connections? Because Metro is bad at that. The Expo/Crenshaw situation is horrific |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 10, 2021 8:34:12 GMT -8
Really feels like to me this wants to extend north to Glendale from 7th/Metro (and I think politicians will consider a line north to Glendale to be more urgent than another east-west line). I think there's some options, seen here:  On the south end, you keep it underground and get a city west station either en route to a wilshire/alvarado connection (basically making it a local alternative with an infill station), and then another station along beverly in central westlake, or you turn it north quickly and get a city west station and then another station near the old subway portal at beverly. Throw another station at sunset, maybe make it at grade or elevated along glendale since there's room. (and because of the sunset overpass, the eastern route would prob need the sunset station to be elevated I imagine, so a lot of stairs to get down to glendale from the platform). Then both dive back underground after the freeway entrance and have a station where silver lake meets glendale. The eastern route stays underground basically until it hits the glendale metrolink in atwater, and then it can be elevated or at grade on brand. The western route would follow glendale underground to just short of the glendale/hyperion bridge, but what i can't figure is whether there's space anywhere for a tunnel portal in the hillside, or earlier along glendale, that would allow the tracks to become elevated over the freeway and river, and then curve to the median of glendale where they're at grade or elevated all the way to glendale. I know metro likes to avoid tunneling under properties when it can and instead tunnel under streets (even if that's less direct), since they need to buy underground rights for those properties, so the western route minimizes that almost entirely. I think the engineering is probably easier on the south end of the western route, but much harder on it's north end. Obviously a route north to glendale from union, following the existing tracks, would be way cheaper but arguably way less useful, plus since CAHSR is going to live on those tracks as well, there's a question about how much space there is for another pair of tracks. In other news, I really wish we could swap the colors of lines and have the WSAB be orange. Just feels like the line going to (almost) orange county should be orange, you know? |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 10, 2021 10:20:47 GMT -8
I think they eliminated terminating at the current platforms in response to the railroad stakeholders. Based on this document, they moved the default Union Station terminus further east of Alameda: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6732744&GUID=D855794F-F587-4911-B693-59F0FB7DA467I don't think they ever explained in a written document why there was this design option to be next to the MWD building. I had thought it was because there were issues with putting it in front of Union Station, but now seeing how close it is to the other platforms, it could also be that someone asked them to keep studying a way to put it as close as possible to the train platforms. If they terminate at this spot, it does look like it would cost a mountain of money and cause a lot of disruption at Union Station to extend the line further, but unfortunately, I don't think they study the potential costs of future expansions that are not formally in the works. There is a lot to unpack in the document you posted. The station location just off Alameda is ok but still a long walk to transfer to B and D lines. The location behind MWD building has shorter walk but will preclude all future extension option. I'm not sure that's a good trade off. They are still looking at Little Tokyo which is good. If transfer to E line can be made here, it's a win. The default design has no transfer station here. They seem to suggest they are eliminating Vernon and Washington stations. That means WASB will run express from Slauson to Alameda/7th street. I actually think this is an improvement. Yeah, they eliminated those two stations some time ago. They phrase it as an improvement and I agree that for most riders it will be, but it's really a cost savings measure. If they had unlimited funds, those stations would still be there. Responding to your earlier post, I think that having the train go to LAUS through the Arts District probably isn't the best route for most WSAB riders, but it will be a good route for many as I think that the area between the station at 8th/Alameda and 1st street is filling with jobs and job creation will explode with HSR and Metrolink improvements. It's going to be a huge destination even when not taking a train. But aside from that and more importantly, I think that it is the best route for the system when looking at a comprehensive service. I agree with Jerard about wanting the A line to be able to use the WSAB tracks. I don't know about replacing Washington since the Convention Center/Staples are such big destinations, but being able to alternate trains would really reduce the congestion at Flower and Washington. I've not heard any mention that metro intends for that to happen. It seems like a non-brained to at least consider and maybe they did internally. Speaking of Flower, that's where the WSAB will terminate if it follows 8th. Some have mentioned Figueroa, but metro has always said Flower in the meetings that I've attended. And iirc they intend to connect to 7th with an underground passageway along Flower making it essentially one big station. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 10, 2021 10:22:06 GMT -8
Really feels like to me this wants to extend north to Glendale from 7th/Metro (and I think politicians will consider a line north to Glendale to be more urgent than another east-west line). Wow I just finished this map earlier and we are thinking alike Andert. It would be easier just to shift the line north ward to hit up City West/Good Samaritan Hospital, Echo Park and continue via Lucas Avenue and Glendale Blvd even possibly utilizing part of the Glendale Freeway right of way to reduce costs and eliminate some of the headaches. I added one additional piece which I alluded in my earlier post which is utilizing this tunnel to enable Blue Line trains and then after a 4 track Fashion District station split off of the main 8th Street tunnel and create a short 0.5 mile tunnel to then tie it into the existing Flower Street tunnel around 9th Street, if we are going to spend billions into another DTLA tunnel lets solve a couple of core capacity problems at the same time an eliminate more construction headaches for Little Tokyo. It looks likely that if passengers on WSAB are going to transfer to A , B , D and E trains another complex of mezzanines and transfer walkways are going to be needed even the potential of extending the side platforms of the A and E line to connect with the WSAB and lets face it that big surface parking lot on 8th and Figueroa would be the perfect site to double as an additional entrance to the Metro Center Hub. I agree with Jerard about wanting the A line to be able to use the WSAB tracks. I don't know about replacing Washington since the Convention Center/Staples are such big destinations, but being able to alternate trains would really reduce the congestion at Flower and Washington. I've not heard any mention that metro intends for that to happen. It seems like a non-brained to at least consider and maybe they did internally. As far as Staples Center/LA Live/Convention Center, most passengers after these games and events (like the Auto Show) if they took the Red "B" Line or Purple "D" line will walk the three blocks to 7th Street with no issues. I don't see this as a deterrent for passengers as they will be walking to a station already and if the entrance is expanded to 8th and Figueroa that shortens the walk for many transit patrons. For the Washington Blvd replacement service: Passengers needing to travel to LA Trade Tech will have a slightly longer trip by a small amount because it will requires a transfer at the Metro Center hub and continue south on E trains. The only main issue with this replacement is the Washington/San Pedro station however that can be remedied by the high level of Metro and DASH Buses already serving the location now that will get tied into a future Fashion District Station.  DTLA WSAB Downtown Route Opportunities WSAB Glendale |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 10, 2021 10:31:57 GMT -8
Really feels like to me this wants to extend north to Glendale from 7th/Metro (and I think politicians will consider a line north to Glendale to be more urgent than another east-west line). I think there's some options, seen here: On the south end, you keep it underground and get a city west station either en route to a wilshire/alvarado connection (basically making it a local alternative with an infill station), and then another station along beverly in central westlake, or you turn it north quickly and get a city west station and then another station near the old subway portal at beverly. Throw another station at sunset, maybe make it at grade or elevated along glendale since there's room. (and because of the sunset overpass, the eastern route would prob need the sunset station to be elevated I imagine, so a lot of stairs to get down to glendale from the platform). Then both dive back underground after the freeway entrance and have a station where silver lake meets glendale. The eastern route stays underground basically until it hits the glendale metrolink in atwater, and then it can be elevated or at grade on brand. The western route would follow glendale underground to just short of the glendale/hyperion bridge, but what i can't figure is whether there's space anywhere for a tunnel portal in the hillside, or earlier along glendale, that would allow the tracks to become elevated over the freeway and river, and then curve to the median of glendale where they're at grade or elevated all the way to glendale. I know metro likes to avoid tunneling under properties when it can and instead tunnel under streets (even if that's less direct), since they need to buy underground rights for those properties, so the western route minimizes that almost entirely. I think the engineering is probably easier on the south end of the western route, but much harder on it's north end. Obviously a route north to glendale from union, following the existing tracks, would be way cheaper but arguably way less useful, plus since CAHSR is going to live on those tracks as well, there's a question about how much space there is for another pair of tracks. In other news, I really wish we could swap the colors of lines and have the WSAB be orange. Just feels like the line going to (almost) orange county should be orange, you know? Interesting. Is this something that is being considered or a fantasy map? Nothing wrong with fantasy maps, but just curious whether we are discussing something that is on metros radar. Regarding tunneling under private property, we're seeing right now what could go wrong. Metro is having to dig down and remove anomalies for the D line extension. Imagine having to dig down under private buildings to do something like that. It would be almost impossible. They would have to take the tunnel boring machine apart to remove it and then reinsert somehow. Probably from the opposite direction while hoping that it doesn't happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 10, 2021 10:40:55 GMT -8
Interesting. Is this something that is being considered or a fantasy map? Nothing wrong with fantasy maps, but just curious whether we are discussing something that is on metros radar. Regarding tunneling under private property, we're seeing right now what could go wrong. Metro is having to dig down and remove anomalies for the D line extension. Imagine having to dig down under private buildings to do something like that. It would be almost impossible. They would have to take the tunnel boring machine apart to remove it and then reinsert somehow. Probably from the opposite direction while hoping that it doesn't happen again. The Eco Rapid Corridor (which is the WSAB) is a Joint Powers Authority (similar to what built the Expo Line via the Construction Authority) that has an established objective and vision to continue the line to Glendale and eventually Burbank Airport. I believe that is included as part of SCAG's RTP/SCS (if I am not mistaken) |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 10, 2021 12:00:41 GMT -8
In addition to what JerardWright said, in the 2009 LTRP there's two poorly-defined routes to glendale/burbank under 'strategic unfunded' plans, and I think this correlates to the yellow line concept (while the other followed the metrolink tracks from Union). In june they'll publish an updated strategic unfunded list, and I'm sure that this concept will make it on the list again. Beyond that, nothing's funded, but I do expect this line to become one of the highest unfunded priorities after a vermont subway. They were toying with an LRT line to glendale recently along the metrolink tracks, but opted for 2 metrolink infill stations instead, so it's definitely on their radar to extend service up there. I do think it'll play a role in how Metro engineers the end of the line to enable a future extension. I would be very surprised if they did not have an internal plan or preference for where they want to take the line next and made sure to allow for that in where they place their tail tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 10, 2021 21:35:19 GMT -8
Metro did some analysis of the WSAB options. 7th/Metro option has about 13% more ridership than the Union Station option and would score better for federal New Starts grants.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 11, 2021 6:47:35 GMT -8
Really feels like to me this wants to extend north to Glendale from 7th/Metro (and I think politicians will consider a line north to Glendale to be more urgent than another east-west line). Wow I just finished this map earlier and we are thinking alike Andert. It would be easier just to shift the line north ward to hit up City West/Good Samaritan Hospital, Echo Park and continue via Lucas Avenue and Glendale Blvd even possibly utilizing part of the Glendale Freeway right of way to reduce costs and eliminate some of the headaches. I added one additional piece which I alluded in my earlier post which is utilizing this tunnel to enable Blue Line trains and then after a 4 track Fashion District station split off of the main 8th Street tunnel and create a short 0.5 mile tunnel to then tie it into the existing Flower Street tunnel around 9th Street, if we are going to spend billions into another DTLA tunnel lets solve a couple of core capacity problems at the same time an eliminate more construction headaches for Little Tokyo. It looks likely that if passengers on WSAB are going to transfer to A , B , D and E trains another complex of mezzanines and transfer walkways are going to be needed even the potential of extending the side platforms of the A and E line to connect with the WSAB and lets face it that big surface parking lot on 8th and Figueroa would be the perfect site to double as an additional entrance to the Metro Center Hub. As far as Staples Center/LA Live/Convention Center, most passengers after these games and events (like the Auto Show) if they took the Red "B" Line or Purple "D" line will walk the three blocks to 7th Street with no issues. I don't see this as a deterrent for passengers as they will be walking to a station already and if the entrance is expanded to 8th and Figueroa that shortens the walk for many transit patrons. For the Washington Blvd replacement service: Passengers needing to travel to LA Trade Tech will have a slightly longer trip by a small amount because it will requires a transfer at the Metro Center hub and continue south on E trains. The only main issue with this replacement is the Washington/San Pedro station however that can be remedied by the high level of Metro and DASH Buses already serving the location now that will get tied into a future Fashion District Station. DTLA WSAB Downtown Route OpportunitiesWSAB GlendaleThose are some tremendous maps. Great work (only thing I disagree with as far as the images go is Vermont, that should be a continuation of the red line). Anyway, could you make a map with the route I discussed. I think the route I proposed makes the most sense for the WSAB. 1. Slauson 2. Washington 3. 7th & Alameda (Arts District South) 4. South Park/Fashion District (5A) Pico to 7th MetroCenter to 2nd/Broadway Or (5B) Pershing Square to 2nd Broadway Or (5C) Any Other Reasonable Route 6. Vin Scully Ave/W. Sunset Blvd 7. Glendale Blvd 8. Brand Blvd 9. Glenoaks Blvd 10. Bob Hope Airport 11. North Hollywood Station 12. Connects to Orange Line to make 1 line |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 13, 2021 10:12:28 GMT -8
Explain to me why this lines expansion would be westward toward Venice or Sunset? Granted they both deserve lines well off into the future - but wouldn’t the smarter expansion route be (1) Union Station to Glendale to North Hollywood (connect with the Orange Line as one single line) or (2) Pershing Square to 2nd/Broadway to Hope St to NFigueroa to West Sunset (w/stop at Vin Scully Ave 3 min walk to Dodger Stadium) to Glendale Blvd to Downtown Glendale to North Hollywood to connect to the Orange Line. Seems to make the most sense to me? Question: What will the transfers look like? If they go to Pershing Square will be be directly connected to the station like built next to it or underneath it? If it goes to 7th Metro Center will be going directly into it or some awful walking transfer? Same with the Union Station connections? Because Metro is bad at that. The Expo/Crenshaw situation is horrific 1. Glendale is very much an option. I didn't exclude it. I said there are three options for extension: Sunset/Santa Monica, Pico/Venice, and Alvarado/Glendale Also Routing it near Union Station doesn't really buy you any benefit as we already discussed. Most riders on this line whether the souther WASB segment or the northern/western segment will want to go to Metro Center and transit core. Dodger Stadium station is great for going to the game but useless most of the time. Far better to have a City West station in my opinion for all 3 possible extension. 2. Pershing Square is already off the table because Metro said it wouldn't be able to transfer to both B/ D and A/ E lines. Metro originally wanted to approach Pershing Square on 5th street and then terminate at Flower/5th (implying adding a new infill station for A/E line). But there is an issue with station placement at Pershing Square so the only way to allow transfer is to go Parallel to B/D line. But that precludes transfers to A/E line under the current EIR scope. 3. Either Pershing Square or Metro Center transfer will involve walking via connecting tunnels. And both will be far shorter than the transfer at Union Station. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 13, 2021 11:02:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 13, 2021 12:25:52 GMT -8
^ Interesting. So the 101 below-grade trench and the Red/Purple Line tunnels aren't any issues for future rail lines regarding US approaches via underground alignments after all?
In other words there's technically nothing that could have prevented the Blue (Gold) Line from stopping in front of Union Station on Alameda (as opposed to the current backwards S-curve approach bringing it next to the commuter rails)? Because based on this alternatives analysis for WSAB, that's the impression I'm getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 13, 2021 12:57:24 GMT -8
So in that eastern union option are the platforms at the same grade as the gold line platforms, and then the tracks plunge down into a tunnel for the tails? Seems like it'd need to be very steep to get below chavez here.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 13, 2021 14:17:28 GMT -8
So in that eastern union option are the platforms at the same grade as the gold line platforms, and then the tracks plunge down into a tunnel for the tails? Seems like it'd need to be very steep to get below chavez here. I think it would all be in a tunnel. ^ Interesting. So the 101 below-grade trench and the Red/Purple Line tunnels aren't any issues for future rail lines regarding US approaches via underground alignments after all? In other words there's technically nothing that could have prevented the Blue (Gold) Line from stopping in front of Union Station on Alameda (as opposed to the current backwards S-curve approach bringing it next to the commuter rails)? Because based on this alternatives analysis for WSAB, that's the impression I'm getting. It might be that it would need to be very deep and expensive. And I guess costs might also be higher because of the risks involved with tunneling under the freeway. Imagine if it ran into an anomaly underneath the freeway and needed to be resolved by excavating from the surface. Though I guess the freeways are close enough to the ends of the alignments that they could stop tunnel boring just short of the freeway and do the rest of the way via the SEM method that they used to excavated part of the Regional Connector. I wasn't paying as much attention when they planned the Blue/Gold/A/L lines. It looks like they wanted to put them with the commuter tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 14, 2021 10:51:45 GMT -8
Here are the downtown station and tail track location options, for what it’s worth.  Thanks for doing this. You can see the uncomplicated (relatively speaking) of crossing the 110 at 8th street vs. crossing the 110 at 2nd street (Bunker Hill, road tunnels, 110, 101 all getting in the way) or crossing the 101 underground via Broadway (101 and crossing the B/D line tunnel curving towards Union Station). |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 15, 2021 1:32:37 GMT -8
Dodger Stadium station is great for going to the game but useless most of the time. Far better to have a City West station in my opinion for all 3 possible extension. The WSAB is estimated to initially have roughly 26k NEW transit riders. The parking lots at Dodger Stadium aren’t exactly empty on game nights. I’d imagine you’d see SIGNIFIGANTLY more fans taking rail to the game if they could take a 1 or 2 seat ride DIRECTLY to the stadium as opposed to riding to U.S and taking a rink-a-dink shuttle. I think adding an additional 25k riders 81 times a year is absolutely more valuable than a city west station that is only blocks from 4 other Metro lines. Although you could cross the 110 go up Beaudry and then hit Sunset.. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 10, 2021 11:44:41 GMT -8
Some small updates.
The Arts District Business Improvement District supports the Union Station option (joining Little Tokyo and Downtown Industrial BID).
Cerritos and Artesia are asking for an underground alignment in their cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 10, 2021 12:04:15 GMT -8
I think Cerritos is still trying to kill this line. That's the only reason I can think of their crazy nonsensical request to put this line underground in their jurisdiction. The tallest building in Cerritos is the Sheraton... it is 5 stories tall surrounded by 2.5 acres of surface parking lot. From Google Map, City of Cerritos looks like a master planned parking lot. They have some serious misplaced priority.
|
|
