|
|
Post by fissure on Oct 4, 2021 9:20:01 GMT -8
West of downtown is much denser than east of it, so many more will be transferring to go that direction. LAUS/LT vs 7th means an extra 3 stops on the B/D/E in the direction most people are going, and leaves the Fashion District disconnected from the rail network. The ridership estimates showed that the A from Slauson is so slow lots of people were going to forego a one-seat ride and transfer to the new line just to get to 7th faster. And that few would continue on the A if this line stopped at Slauson, if you believe it. The Fashion District gets a stop in either alternative and they are also getting a new station at 6th on the east side of the district. They are getting their fair share for sure. Are you high? The Fashion District is nowhere near Alameda. It doesn't even reach to Central. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 4, 2021 20:33:26 GMT -8
The Fashion District gets a stop in either alternative and they are also getting a new station at 6th on the east side of the district. They are getting their fair share for sure. Are you high? The Fashion District is nowhere near Alameda. It doesn't even reach to Central. Oops. I was thinking Arts District even as I read and typed "Fashion District". So you're correct. The Fashion District would be poorly served by rail without a stop on 8th. That stop would be a reasonable walk to much of the Fashion District. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 27, 2021 21:35:50 GMT -8
Gateway Cities COG staff recommend supporting the Pioneer-Slauson alignment, with condition that work continues on extending the line to Union Station. According to them, the Downtown LA section is not ready for construction and needs 18-24 months of further studies anyway:
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 29, 2021 8:01:44 GMT -8
Thanks numble. Pioneer to Slauson makes a lot of sense for the IOS, although I still wonder if the A line can handle the extra passengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 23, 2021 14:04:41 GMT -8
Gateway Cities COG staff recommend supporting the Pioneer-Slauson alignment, with condition that work continues on extending the line to Union Station. According to them, the Downtown LA section is not ready for construction and needs 18-24 months of further studies anyway: That's good that the Gateway COG is choosing the fiscally sensible approach and delay the Downtown portion because it needs further study AND I believe consideration to incorporate the Blue Line to run on the alternative that goes towards 7th Street Metro Center with a connection to the Flower Street subwayso that it is a grade separated alternative to eliminate the "problem" at-grade Washington/Flower junction. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on tunnel infrastructure let's at least solve as many core capacity problems as we can. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 24, 2021 7:28:42 GMT -8
Gateway Cities COG staff recommend supporting the Pioneer-Slauson alignment, with condition that work continues on extending the line to Union Station. According to them, the Downtown LA section is not ready for construction and needs 18-24 months of further studies anyway: That's good that the Gateway COG is choosing the fiscally sensible approach and delay the Downtown portion because it needs further study AND I believe consideration to incorporate the Blue Line to run on the alternative that goes towards 7th Street Metro Center with a connection to the Flower Street subwayso that it is a grade separated alternative to eliminate the "problem" at-grade Washington/Flower junction. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on tunnel infrastructure let's at least solve as many core capacity problems as we can. The committee members actually went against the staff recommendation, and the ultimate decision was to support the Union Station alignment, but be okay with an initial operating segment that does not go all the way. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 24, 2021 7:56:13 GMT -8
The committee members actually went against the staff recommendation, and the ultimate decision was to support the Union Station alignment, but be okay with an initial operating segment that does not go all the way. So they didn't recommend an IOS at all? |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 24, 2021 8:29:33 GMT -8
The committee members actually went against the staff recommendation, and the ultimate decision was to support the Union Station alignment, but be okay with an initial operating segment that does not go all the way. So they didn't recommend an IOS at all? They don't put recordings of their meetings online, so I can't reproduce exactly what they did, but I think there was a 7 to 5 or 6 to 6 vote on whether to support "Alternative 3 (Slauson terminus), with a condition that it eventually go to Union Station". They voted to support Alternative 1 (Union Station), with something like saying it is okay for there to be an initial segment stopping short of Union Station (I don't remember if it was explicit that they mentioned a Slauson terminus). What I find kind of funny is that the Gateway COG meetings always have them saying that LA should pay for all of the DTLA portion, the most expensive portion is in LA, how they should split out the costs so the expensive portion doesn't make the Gateway Cities portions more expensive, the Gateway Cities should not have to contribute anything to the DTLA portion, etc. If the Union Station alignment is chosen, it would probably be mostly because of the Gateway Cities and their Metro board votes, but they don't want to financially contribute to the alignment section that they decided on. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 24, 2021 9:54:02 GMT -8
They don't put recordings of their meetings online, so I can't reproduce exactly what they did, but I think there was a 7 to 5 or 6 to 6 vote on whether to support "Alternative 3 (Slauson terminus), with a condition that it eventually go to Union Station". They voted to support Alternative 1 (Union Station), with something like saying it is okay for there to be an initial segment stopping short of Union Station (I don't remember if it was explicit that they mentioned a Slauson terminus). What I find kind of funny is that the Gateway COG meetings always have them saying that LA should pay for all of the DTLA portion, the most expensive portion is in LA, how they should split out the costs so the expensive portion doesn't make the Gateway Cities portions more expensive, the Gateway Cities should not have to contribute anything to the DTLA portion, etc. If the Union Station alignment is chosen, it would probably be mostly because of the Gateway Cities and their Metro board votes, but they don't want to financially contribute to the alignment section that they decided on. Thanks. Well it does seem fair that some of the costs should be shared for the downtown portion, but it wouldn't necessarily be high priority for LA and the Gateway cities could end up with a train line terminating at Slauson for a few decades if that's how they want to play it. Fair might be for LA to pay the cost of any intermediate station(s) between Slauson and LAUS or 8th/Flower. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 24, 2021 9:59:51 GMT -8
That's good that the Gateway COG is choosing the fiscally sensible approach and delay the Downtown portion because it needs further study AND I believe consideration to incorporate the Blue Line to run on the alternative that goes towards 7th Street Metro Center with a connection to the Flower Street subwayso that it is a grade separated alternative to eliminate the "problem" at-grade Washington/Flower junction. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on tunnel infrastructure let's at least solve as many core capacity problems as we can. I'd like to understand why metro decided not to consider a connection between WSAB and the A line given the constraints on Flower. I wonder though if that happened and say half the A line trains terminated at 8th/Flower instead of continuing onto the regional connector, if 15-18 trains per hour each direction would provide enough capacity for the connector? |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 24, 2021 13:01:34 GMT -8
That's good that the Gateway COG is choosing the fiscally sensible approach and delay the Downtown portion because it needs further study AND I believe consideration to incorporate the Blue Line to run on the alternative that goes towards 7th Street Metro Center with a connection to the Flower Street subwayso that it is a grade separated alternative to eliminate the "problem" at-grade Washington/Flower junction. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on tunnel infrastructure let's at least solve as many core capacity problems as we can. I'd like to understand why metro decided not to consider a connection between WSAB and the A line given the constraints on Flower. I wonder though if that happened and say half the A line trains terminated at 8th/Flower instead of continuing onto the regional connector, if 15-18 trains per hour each direction would provide enough capacity for the connector? I believe the majority of the lack of connection between WSAB and A Line was due to the fact that this was going to be studied as a P3. However I think a P3 is not passing the smell test because the latest studies make little reference to it and now I feel that this is the time to reconsider that for the best of the rail network. Also per the most recent studies the higher ridership alternative for the 8th/Flower alternative assumed running trains every 2.5 minutes between Slauson and 8th/Flower. I would figure having that extra service with A Line trains utilizing the tunnel and then spend a little extra money for a tunnel and track tie in to the Flower Street Subway will allow A Line trains to continue through via Regional Connector AND or even have some WSAB continue to Union Station or that could satisfy the connection requirements for Gateway COG to reach Union Station and beyond towards Glendale. The committee members actually went against the staff recommendation, and the ultimate decision was to support the Union Station alignment, but be okay with an initial operating segment that does not go all the way. Not surprised as I said in other posts, the Metro Board will go with what the COG is recommending for Measure M projects. Realistically where are they going to find the gap in resources to pay for it? Even if they applied for a FTA New Starts grant match, Will it cover the balance given the majority of Measure M WSAB resources per the expenditure plan will occur around 2040? I also believe the Metro Board with the Gateway COGs direction put themselves between a rock and hard place with the move to force LA to contribute more to the cost of the tunnel. Because ultimately LA should decide where it goes which would benefit the most passengers since they will be paying the most in the contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 29, 2021 11:49:13 GMT -8
Update on funding plan for WSAB. They are still pursuing a P3 and they met with a lot of potential contractors on a P3 recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 29, 2021 13:32:45 GMT -8
I guess this is why Metro scuttled all the interline options eliminated all the dual track connection/switches with A line. They still want to build this as PPP rather than conventional financing.
In this context, I think building the line to Slauson makes sense because going all the way to Union Station or 8th Street will lock in the separate tacks and we lose the flexibility of being able to do express trains and interline options with A line in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 29, 2021 14:46:28 GMT -8
There are a lot of interesting details in the Metro board documents and these Gateway COG/Eco-Rapid documents:
Metro says the earliest they can deliver to Slauson, even if there were no funding issues, is 2033-2035, so there must be a lot of issues with shovel-readiness, unless they are being extremely conservative.
It looks like there is still a lot of negotiation with Union Pacific, and some P3 contractors suggest exploring alternatives if they can’t reach agreement with Union Pacific.
Eco-Rapid says Metro should explore newer LRT technology, that might not need catenary wires throughout the alignment, such as battery-powered trains that are charged at each station.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 11, 2022 15:17:47 GMT -8
Update on WSAB. The board will vote on the locally preferred alternative this month.
Supervisor/Director Janice Hahn is not happy with the timeline:
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 12, 2022 10:19:06 GMT -8
Welp that's pretty much it for the 7th/metro route then. Although if they're only building it to Slauson now who knows what could happen that could make them rethink the route in the next decade (or more).
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 12, 2022 11:40:12 GMT -8
Welp that's pretty much it for the 7th/metro route then. Although if they're only building it to Slauson now who knows what could happen that could make them rethink the route in the next decade (or more). It's good that Metro is recommending building only to Slauson now. Metro staff actually want Metro Center but the political stakeholders (none of which takes Metro) and are lined up behind Union Station. This is actually the best outcome we can hope for... basically a punt on the decision on the DTLA segment and face-saving compromise for the politicos. Doing it this way will preserve the possibility of interline with A line from Slauson to Washington and saves the Metro Center option which by all metrics is superior to Union Station except the one that counts (political support). |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 12, 2022 12:16:59 GMT -8
Supervisor/Director Janice Hahn is not happy with the timeline: I assume that is Cerritos and their nonsensical demand that WASB be underground in parking lots Cerritos? Having already killed the station in Cerritos, they are going for the complete kill. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 12, 2022 12:46:49 GMT -8
Supervisor/Director Janice Hahn is not happy with the timeline: I assume that is Cerritos and their nonsensical demand that WASB be underground in parking lots Cerritos? Having already killed the station in Cerritos, they are going for the complete kill. Oops, I put the wrong tweet. That tweet was from 2020, so hopefully that issue is resolved by now. But since you bring it up, Measure M has created a new issue where local cities have to contribute at least 3% of the cost of the part of the line in their city, but only if there is a station built in their city. This is probably one reason we are seeing stations being removed on some lines, it isn’t for planning decisions, but because the city wants to save money. Measure R didn’t have this requirement, so we can get a station in Beverly Hills without the city contributing money. Measure M says: This is the actual tweet I meant to post: |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 12, 2022 12:53:08 GMT -8
Welp that's pretty much it for the 7th/metro route then. Although if they're only building it to Slauson now who knows what could happen that could make them rethink the route in the next decade (or more). It's good that Metro is recommending building only to Slauson now. Metro staff actually want Metro Center but the political stakeholders (none of which takes Metro) and are lined up behind Union Station. This is actually the best outcome we can hope for... basically a punt on the decision on the DTLA segment and face-saving compromise for the politicos. Doing it this way will preserve the possibility of interline with A line from Slauson to Washington and saves the Metro Center option which by all metrics is superior to Union Station except the one that counts (political support). Yes, I was mostly 100% in agreement with your position when the tea leaves were showing that Metro was going to recommend building only to Slauson. The potential wrinkle is that Dutra’s presentation also says that they will be voting on 1) setting the terminus at Union Station and 2) continue studying building to Union Station, so that makes it harder for them to make the decision for 7th/Metro. If they discover it will be massively more expensive to build to Union Station, or if funding is delayed for a very long time, so that they would need to restart the study many more years down the line (when the pro-Union Station folks have either left or have less pull), that might help. But I suppose people would rather have it built to Union Station within 15 years than built to 7th/Metro in 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 12, 2022 13:01:56 GMT -8
Supervisor/Director Janice Hahn is not happy with the timeline: I assume that is Cerritos and their nonsensical demand that WASB be underground in parking lots Cerritos? Having already killed the station in Cerritos, they are going for the complete kill. Appropriately, I cannot think of Cerritos without hearing "Cerritos Auto Square!" in my head. Glad to hear that at least is resolved, though. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 12, 2022 13:07:37 GMT -8
I assume that is Cerritos and their nonsensical demand that WASB be underground in parking lots Cerritos? Having already killed the station in Cerritos, they are going for the complete kill. Oops, I put the wrong tweet. That tweet was from 2020, so hopefully that issue is resolved by now. But since you bring it up, Measure M has created a new issue where local cities have to contribute at least 3% of the cost of the part of the line in their city, but only if there is a station built in their city. This is probably one reason we are seeing stations being removed on some lines, it isn’t for planning decisions, but because the city wants to save money. Measure R didn’t have this requirement, so we can get a station in Beverly Hills without the city contributing money. Measure M says: This is the actual tweet I meant to post: Glad that she's pushing them on the schedule. Something needs to give with the absurd schedule drift with the both the contractors on current projects and projections for future ones. I don't know what the answer is, I know it's complicated, but I know there IS an answer. Feels like this should be Wiggins' top priority, to figure out how we got here and to pull us out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 12, 2022 20:41:18 GMT -8
Latest update on the WSAB project. Interlining might now be possible since they are restudying the all-grade separated section from Slauson to downtown.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 12, 2022 23:22:17 GMT -8
Janice Hahn will introduce a motion to make it Metro policy that the WSAB project is not complete until it reaches Union Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 14, 2022 18:00:38 GMT -8
Here’s the board report this month on moving forward with WSAB, including selecting Union Station as the terminus. Pretty lackluster in explaining why they chose Union Station. They don’t really explain it, except saying 29 more people submitted comments in favor of Union Station, but they also reveal there were more people opposed to Union Station than those that supported it.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 15, 2022 0:08:26 GMT -8
Metro directors will ask Metro to do a bunch of WSAB-related things, such as improving the Washington/Flower junction and putting a BRT between Slauson and Union Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 18, 2022 21:31:35 GMT -8
Here is Metro CEO Stephanie Wiggins' letter in response to Janice Hahn's letter regarding the West Santa Ana Branch:
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 20, 2023 11:59:17 GMT -8
It's a year later and from what I recently read, Cerritos filed a lawsuit. Are there any updates on any of that? From my end, I can confirm that there aren't very many trains running on the tracks along the Randolph part of the ROW (around Pacific Bl.) The last time I witnessed a train was in December. The crossing arms by where I live don't go down anymore when the UP workers ride the tracks on their modified pickup trucks. In fact, the electrical housing unit that powered the arms was removed. I want to believe this is progress, but this is LA and anything, terrible or good, can happen. What if the next thing on the tracks is a Metrolink train with service to Atlantic Av and Rosemead Bl.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 19, 2023 4:45:50 GMT -8
It's a year later and from what I recently read, Cerritos filed a lawsuit. Are there any updates on any of that? From my end, I can confirm that there aren't very many trains running on the tracks along the Randolph part of the ROW (around Pacific Bl.) The last time I witnessed a train was in December. The crossing arms by where I live don't go down anymore when the UP workers ride the tracks on their modified pickup trucks. In fact, the electrical housing unit that powered the arms was removed. I want to believe this is progress, but this is LA and anything, terrible or good, can happen. What if the next thing on the tracks is a Metrolink train with service to Atlantic Av and Rosemead Bl. Speaking of Metrolink, you have the germ of an idea that I have been mulling over for a minute now, with all these damn fool ideas like an expensive subway to Union Station where they have to rip up Little Tokyo again. Because of the constant UP ROW issues that seems to be the core issue with this line getting funding (it is not the name) and the fact that is line is being designed like an express rail that is NOT connected to the A Line physically thru any track switches and the COG is dead set on going to Union Station (the LPA has Burbank Airport as the terminal). Perhaps this corridor should be rethought of as a High Frequency Metrolink line that will require electrification through EMUs. Then this could be the seed money to finally complete the Run Through tracks and provide frequent service to SE LA County and connect it to Burbank Airport even up to the Antelope Valley. I am thinking this way because if they are going to need to do a new EIR on this segment from Slauson to Downtown LA perhaps they could include this as an option. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 22, 2024 16:52:43 GMT -8
The West Santa Ana Branch new name is now Southeast Gateway Line.
|
|
