|
|
Post by usmc1401 on May 10, 2021 13:31:34 GMT -8
How about this instead of underground. A four track wide trench.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 10, 2021 14:21:01 GMT -8
How about this instead of underground. A four track wide trench. 2 for WSAB, 2 for Metrolink?  |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 30, 2021 20:25:16 GMT -8
The head of LA Metro's P3 efforts for the last several years, Colin Peppard, joined Fengate: fengate.com/blog/2021/05/26/colin-peppard-joins-fengate-as-director-infrastructure-investments/It would be interesting to see if there is any change in approach at LA Metro with whoever replaces Colin. Fengate submitted a light rail P3 proposal for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, which was not selected. I'd have to think that they would be submitting a P3 proposal for the West Santa Ana Branch since their prior proposal was light rail and they hired Metro's P3 guy. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 10, 2021 15:09:13 GMT -8
Update on WSAB project. Draft EIR/EIS expected next month. Expect the cost estimates to jump when it is released as the costs for soil remediation, freight relocation and building the C Line connection are probably going to be expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 11, 2021 8:19:00 GMT -8
The C-line transfer looks treacherous... Get out of WASB station, walk next to WASB tracks over the 105 then get down freeway level to board the C-line. I guess there are several B-line to bus transfers now that are similarly horrible with walking over 105 but none involve walking next to train tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 11, 2021 9:00:58 GMT -8
The C-line transfer looks treacherous... Get out of WASB station, walk next to WASB tracks over the 105 then get down freeway level to board the C-line. I guess there are several B-line to bus transfers now that are similarly horrible with walking over 105 but none involve walking next to train tracks. Yeah, I guess they can’t put the station directly over the 105 because they’d need to shut down some lanes (or the whole freeway segment) during construction? Probably also will help prove the monorail down the middle of the 405 (even with freeway adjacent stations instead of freeway median stations) is not going to be as easy to build as advertised. |
|
|
|
Post by joquitter on Jun 11, 2021 9:31:34 GMT -8
Thanks for the update, Numble. I had a feeling cost was going to skyrocket because of this C-line transfer. Two questions:
1) Do we think this huge cost inflation will have Metro choose the Alternative 4 (Pioneer to 105) as the first IOS of this line?
2) I understand the bridge with the tracks and the bridge on Facade Ave, but why does the Arthur Ave Bridge need reconstruction?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 11, 2021 10:53:33 GMT -8
Thanks for the update, Numble. I had a feeling cost was going to skyrocket because of this C-line transfer. Two questions: 1) Do we think this huge cost inflation will have Metro choose the Alternative 4 (Pioneer to 105) as the first IOS of this line? 2) I understand the bridge with the tracks and the bridge on Facade Ave, but why does the Arthur Ave Bridge need reconstruction? 1) I don't really know--I think it all comes down to funding and what they can get from a P3 proposal. 2) On the meeting where this was explained, they said the bridges need to come down because the pylons would block the new C Line station/tracks. I think one participant asked whether they could just not rebuild the Arthur Ave bridge, and Metro staff said the bridge carries a storm drain that is being used, but I think they alluded to maybe working with LADWP to see if this bridge is actually needed. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 11, 2021 16:32:13 GMT -8
if they go with Pico/7th/8th/Staples as an end destination, how will that work? Will a station be built underground next to 7th Street MetroCenter - essentially just adding another floor and line to that station? Or would they build it onto 8th St near Pico or something?
I think this is the perfect excuse to totally redo the Blue/Expo approach into DTLA. Build a subway tunnel down Flower St with a mega station with entrances at LA Live and at Staples Center - on one level the station would have tracks facing toward 7th St for the Blue and Expo (grrr Band E) and on another level tracks facing East to West for the WSAB.
The options for the continuation of the line are endless - I’m not really sure what the best is. It could go west to Westlake/MacArthur Purple Line station and then up Alvarado toward Glendale. OR it skips over the 101 and then up Beaudry and somehow stops at Dodgers Stadium before going toward Glendale? I’m just throwing out ideas at this point.
Side note: That transfer is horrendous. Keeping in the Metro tradition. What’s the point of having rail if it’s a challenge just to use it? Jeez
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 13, 2021 10:50:24 GMT -8
if they go with Pico/7th/8th/Staples as an end destination, how will that work? Will a station be built underground next to 7th Street MetroCenter - essentially just adding another floor and line to that station? Or would they build it onto 8th St near Pico or something? I think this is the perfect excuse to totally redo the Blue/Expo approach into DTLA. Build a subway tunnel down Flower St with a mega station with entrances at LA Live and at Staples Center - on one level the station would have tracks facing toward 7th St for the Blue and Expo (grrr Band E) and on another level tracks facing East to West for the WSAB. The options for the continuation of the line are endless - I’m not really sure what the best is. It could go west to Westlake/MacArthur Purple Line station and then up Alvarado toward Glendale. OR it skips over the 101 and then up Beaudry and somehow stops at Dodgers Stadium before going toward Glendale? I’m just throwing out ideas at this point. Side note: That transfer is horrendous. Keeping in the Metro tradition. What’s the point of having rail if it’s a challenge just to use it? Jeez If that option is selected, the terminal station would be on 8th, east of Flower, with an underground walk to 7th for connections. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 20, 2021 8:50:37 GMT -8
Watching this month's Executive Committee meeting and was surprised to hear Hilda Solis state at 33 minutes that she would like WSAB to "start downtown". It wasn't completely clear, but I understood her to be saying that she wants construction to begin downtown and not at the other end of the line. She said that would serve the most minority residents. That would be the first time that I've heard any board members suggest that they wanted downtown first.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 20, 2021 10:11:55 GMT -8
Watching this month's Executive Committee meeting and was surprised to hear Hilda Solis state at 33 minutes that she would like WSAB to "start downtown". It wasn't completely clear, but I understood her to be saying that she wants construction to begin downtown and not at the other end of the line. She said that would serve the most minority residents. That would be the first time that I've heard any board members suggest that they wanted downtown first. Yes, I think that was what she meant. They could do it, but it probably wrecks the staff’s original plan to start from Artesia if they needed to build in segments. The other interpretation is that she is in favor of the 7th/Metro option, but it sounded like she just wanted it to be built from Downtown first. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 20, 2021 13:33:37 GMT -8
I know it’s late, but so as not to overwhelm 7th/Metro, why not route the line to Pershing Square and (eventually) the 5th/Flower station that could later be built using that “pocket track” that was included in the Regional Connector?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 20, 2021 13:36:58 GMT -8
I know it’s late, but so as not to overwhelm 7th/Metro, why not route the line to Pershing Square and (eventually) the 5th/Flower station that could later be built using that “pocket track” that was included in the Regional Connector? I think the stated reason was something to do with the expense of the complexity or depth crossing the red line. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 20, 2021 14:23:12 GMT -8
Watching this month's Executive Committee meeting and was surprised to hear Hilda Solis state at 33 minutes that she would like WSAB to "start downtown". It wasn't completely clear, but I understood her to be saying that she wants construction to begin downtown and not at the other end of the line. She said that would serve the most minority residents. That would be the first time that I've heard any board members suggest that they wanted downtown first. Yes, I think that was what she meant. They could do it, but it probably wrecks the staff’s original plan to start from Artesia if they needed to build in segments. The other interpretation is that she is in favor of the 7th/Metro option, but it sounded like she just wanted it to be built from Downtown first. Not just the staff. Artesia is in Hahn's District and she has been very vocal about this project. The way that Ms. Solis phrased her response indicates that she believes that she expects WSAB to be fully funded and that's why it's ok to start downtown. "I particularly want to say how important it was to get the West Santa funding in - at least potentially in - and hope that can start downtown. " |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 22, 2021 16:25:35 GMT -8
I know it’s late, but so as not to overwhelm 7th/Metro, why not route the line to Pershing Square and (eventually) the 5th/Flower station that could later be built using that “pocket track” that was included in the Regional Connector? I totally agree that’s the best call. I think the best plan to eventually connect the WSAB line with the Orange Line via Dodger Stadium, Glendale and Burbank’s And the best course of action for a connection near downtown would be Pershing Square. First putting a station where there isn’t one within walking distance. S. Los Angeles & 9th seems like a reasonably good area. From there as I said, I agree Pershing Square is the best connection point to provide transfers. Pershing option *1 could be to go under Pershing westward and then turn northward and run parallel to the RC and have a WSAB station underneath the 2nd & Flower station. From there have a station at Sunset & Figueroa (0.7 miles away). Pershing option *2* could have a station be to travel up Broadway parallel to the Red/Purple tunnel. Build a station at Broadway & 5th to connect to Pershing Square. So it’s a 3 line station. Then continue along Broadway parallel to the Red/Purple tunnel - go underneath the 2nd/Broadway LRT station (no connection) and turn westward on 1st Street. Travel on 1st st parallel to the Reg. Connect LRT tunnel and stop with a station at 1st and Flower/Hope with a 500ft pedestrian connection to the Bunker Hill Reg. Connect station (making it a 3 line station). From there the line turns North and goes under the 101. That’s where both options begin to follow the same route: Turning from the 101 and turning west into Dodger Stadium having a station just 100 yards the gate behind home plate. From there travel onto Sunset with a station at Glendale and Sunset. Then there’s a whole bunch of possibilities. I’d recommend going to Brand Blvd in Glendale, Burbank, following the Orange Line route and ending at Warner Center. But of course there are a whole bunch of variables at play. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 23, 2021 20:59:44 GMT -8
Metro already eliminated Pershing Square and 5th street alignment 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 to B/D line is to go Parallel to B/D line on Broadway . But that precludes transfers to A/E line under the current EIR scope. So the idea of using Pershing Square to transfer was eliminated because 7th street allows WASB transfer to both A/E and B/D.
It was also pointed out that there are already two train tunnels in the area and two freeway which makes any north or northwest extension difficult. You have to go very deep to cross those existing obstacles. It's not in the current WASB scope to go beyond DTLA so Metro likely won't engineer a deep tunnels in DTLA and deep terminal station either on 5th or on Broadway. There is no money to go very deep just on the off chance the line get extended when other routes exist that won't require the deep tunnels and hard to construct deep station.
But none of those issue exists if WASB goes down 8th street. There is a crossing with A/E line but the A/E line is very shallow at 7th street so WASB doesn't need to go very deep. And the crossing 110 freeway at 8th street is much less complicated than crossing 110 freeway at Bunker Hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 24, 2021 2:25:46 GMT -8
Metro already eliminated Pershing Square and 5th street alignment 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 to B/D line is to go Parallel to B/D line on Broadway . But that precludes transfers to A/E line under the current EIR scope. So the idea of using Pershing Square to transfer was eliminated because 7th street allows WASB transfer to both A/E and B/D. It was also pointed out that there are already two train tunnels in the area and two freeway which makes any north or northwest extension difficult. You have to go very deep to cross those existing obstacles. It's not in the current WASB scope to go beyond DTLA so Metro likely won't engineer a deep tunnels in DTLA and deep terminal station either on 5th or on Broadway. There is no money to go very deep just on the off chance the line get extended when other routes exist that won't require the deep tunnels and hard to construct deep station. But none of those issue exists if WASB goes down 8th street. There is a crossing with A/E line but the A/E line is very shallow at 7th street so WASB doesn't need to go very deep. And the crossing 110 freeway at 8th street is much less complicated than crossing 110 freeway at Bunker Hill. That’s a shame because that seems clearly to be the best route for non engineering purposes. Here’s a question though: You said Pershing was eliminated because the only way for that infill station would be to run directly under Pershing. If it can run parallel to the B & D line then what’s wrong with a station at Pershing Square and then at 5th St and then going underneath the A & E lines at 2nd/Broadway. That way you connect to both lines and are more oriented toward the likely future direction of the line - it takes pressure off the MetroCenter and adds some traffic to other stations Is there something I’m missing there or? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 24, 2021 16:18:11 GMT -8
Don't think 2nd/Broadway A/E station can accommodate transfer. The design didn't include a big enough mezzanine level for circulation so it doesn't meet Metro's requirement for transfer station so we would need to build a 2nd station. So that's two new stations (one at 5th/Broadway and one at 2nd/Broadway) compare to 8th/Flower a single station to transfer to both A/E and B/D. Also, the placement of 2nd station near 2nd/Broadway is potentially problematic depending on how deep you have to go. There is too little distance between 5th and 2nd for WASB to descent 100 ft lower into the ground. It will make WASB ride like a roller coaster...  Stations are expensive because we have to build these palace station due to ADA compliance requirements (elevators, wide ingress and egress points, circulation area etc). If you can build one that transfers to both A/E and B/D, it is much better than 2 different transfer stations. Look at how big is the footprint of the A/E 2nd/Broadway station...     |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 15, 2021 10:23:50 GMT -8
Metro has a plan ready for when the Draft EIR/EIS is approved for release (now expected July 30 or first week of August).
July 30: Draft EIR/EIS Release
August/September: Public Comment
October/November: Metro Board selects alignment.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 30, 2021 10:55:07 GMT -8
Draft EIR/EIS released. Staff recommends Slauson to Pioneer alternative, I guess due to financial constraints. Board could overrule them.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 30, 2021 13:41:34 GMT -8
oh boy.
I think we get option four cause there's enough money for it. option 3 becomes phase two.
Metro is SPECTACULARLY bad at designing platform-to-platform connections, wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 30, 2021 13:50:16 GMT -8
And wow, there is a massive amount of Freight Rail relocation in the WSAB project. This amount alone is worth at least a billion dollars to the Freight Rail companies. They're going to make so much money and get so much new free infrastructure from this deal.
And as a bonus, they will get to control the construction timeline of the WSAB under their jurisdiction. Which
means, that level of freight rail re-location should add conservatively 3 years to the construction timeline, mostly for pointless (and unaccountable) delays from the Freight Rail companies.
That amount of delays should conservatively add another 200-300 million to the project costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jul 30, 2021 14:40:54 GMT -8
I mean. How pathetic is this... it’s just an unfortunate fact the mass transit system isn’t a priority to enough people in LA. Or anywhere else in the country. Decisions like these are EMBARASSING.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 1, 2021 12:08:47 GMT -8
Draft EIR/EIS released. Staff recommends Slauson to Pioneer alternative, I guess due to financial constraints. Board could overrule them. This would put massive pressure on what is already the most constrained pinch point in the entire metro system (Washington/Flower). If the A line ever returns to anywhere close to the ridership levels that it had 10 years ago, there is literally no room for riders from WSAB to transfer and continue their journey to DTLA. Even at 2019 levels, there's not enough capacity. Ideally the WSAB would go all the way to Flower and have a rail connection from the A line to the WSAB so that every other A line train could use the WSAB tracks to DTLA. That would best serve riders and would also alleviate congestion at Washington/Flower. Perhaps even a convenient passenger connection between the A/WSAB at Slauson might serve a similar purpose. A line riders do go to LA Live and Staples, but on any given train, the overwhelming majority are going to 7th/metro. |
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Aug 1, 2021 13:39:52 GMT -8
Would the 3 alternative mean a transfer at Slauson or a continuation of the WSAB trains on the A train track to 7th Street and maybe beyond?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 1, 2021 20:29:13 GMT -8
Would the 3 alternative mean a transfer at Slauson or a continuation of the WSAB trains on the A train track to 7th Street and maybe beyond? Draft EIR/EIS released. Staff recommends Slauson to Pioneer alternative, I guess due to financial constraints. Board could overrule them. This would put massive pressure on what is already the most constrained pinch point in the entire metro system (Washington/Flower). If the A line ever returns to anywhere close to the ridership levels that it had 10 years ago, there is literally no room for riders from WSAB to transfer and continue their journey to DTLA. Even at 2019 levels, there's not enough capacity. Ideally the WSAB would go all the way to Flower and have a rail connection from the A line to the WSAB so that every other A line train could use the WSAB tracks to DTLA. That would best serve riders and would also alleviate congestion at Washington/Flower. Perhaps even a convenient passenger connection between the A/WSAB at Slauson might serve a similar purpose. A line riders do go to LA Live and Staples, but on any given train, the overwhelming majority are going to 7th/metro. The draft EIR is quite clear that WSAB will not share tracks with the A Line. The WSAB alignment at Slauson will be elevated and parallel to the A Line. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 2, 2021 9:05:13 GMT -8
Would the 3 alternative mean a transfer at Slauson or a continuation of the WSAB trains on the A train track to 7th Street and maybe beyond? This would put massive pressure on what is already the most constrained pinch point in the entire metro system (Washington/Flower). If the A line ever returns to anywhere close to the ridership levels that it had 10 years ago, there is literally no room for riders from WSAB to transfer and continue their journey to DTLA. Even at 2019 levels, there's not enough capacity. Ideally the WSAB would go all the way to Flower and have a rail connection from the A line to the WSAB so that every other A line train could use the WSAB tracks to DTLA. That would best serve riders and would also alleviate congestion at Washington/Flower. Perhaps even a convenient passenger connection between the A/WSAB at Slauson might serve a similar purpose. A line riders do go to LA Live and Staples, but on any given train, the overwhelming majority are going to 7th/metro. The WSAB alignment at Slauson will be elevated and parallel to the A Line. My bad idea was to have a crossover whenever both lines were at grade, maybe at Washington, as part of a near-future project. My hope was that the design of WSAB wouldn't preclude that from happening, but looking at the DEIR drawings I see that won't be possible. The WSAB is never planned to run at grade next to the A line. Any crossover between the two would have to be elevated. Not that it couldn't ever happen in the future, but it wouldn't be the near future. The WSAB is planned to go from the downtown tunnel straight to elevated. It will go over the 10 fwy (carmageddon again?) and will stay elevated for the entire duration that it's adjacent to the blue line in all options. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 2, 2021 10:53:38 GMT -8
I remember discussion of running short-line to Slauson to handle all of the transfer traffic. Given that, it would make more sense to just send trains from Long Beach onto WSAB and turn the trains from Flower/Washington at Slauson. If we were Japan, we'd extend them as a local to Willowbrook at rush hour, with through trains skipping Florence/Firestone/103rd.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2021 11:24:20 GMT -8
I remember discussion of running short-line to Slauson to handle all of the transfer traffic. Given that, it would make more sense to just send trains from Long Beach onto WSAB and turn the trains from Flower/Washington at Slauson. If we were Japan, we'd extend them as a local to Willowbrook at rush hour, with through trains skipping Florence/Firestone/103rd. The EIR still talks about a 2.5 minute short-line to Slauson for 1 hour of rush hour for the 7th/Metro alignment. |
|
