|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 14, 2015 13:14:53 GMT -8
They made this interesting note in the Attachment A Final Executive Summary on page 20: 3. Following the Metro Blue Line The alternatives proposed alongside the Metro Blue Line connecting Slauson Station and Union Station reflect a higher number of boardings due to “forced transfers”. These alternatives include the West Bank – Alameda and West Bank – Alameda/ Vignes. Typically forced transfers are viewed negatively because transferring adds travel time and can be a deterrent if the delay is significant and the rider has other options. However, in this case the WSAB alternatives provide the Metro Blue Line riders a faster means to reach Union Station since the WSAB alternatives are more direct. For comparison, the travel time from Slauson Station to Union Station by Metro Blue Line is approximately 22 minutes; and by WSAB the travel time will only be approximately 9 minutes. The addition of WSAB between Slauson Station and Union Station can relieve demands on the Metro Blue Line which is currently operating at its full capacity. Interestingly enough, this means that if they went with the aerial station option (above the existing Gold Line station at LAUS) and then extended it to connect with the Gold/A Line tracks north of LAUS, they could switch the configuration of the Gold/A and WSAB lines between the two interline points. The A line could therefore run from Azuza to Long Beach via Little Tokyo and shave off 10 minutes, while the WSAB line could run from Artesia to Union Station via downtown LA. The only drawback is that SGV riders would be forced to transfer at Union Station to reach downtown LA, but at least they would have two separate ways of reaching LA - either by hopping downstairs to the lower platform and riding through the Regional Connector, or by going down to the subway. I think the paragraph is pretty convincing argument for why Alameda alignment is going to be the preferred one. Metro can change the Blue (A) line to run "express" via Alameda between Washington Blvd and Union Station; and have Santa Ana line take the "local" route in Downtown LA via Washington Blvd, Flower Street, and 2nd Street. This will shave a lot of running time on the longest light rail line in the world (Blue/A), while still maintain the same level of headway in Downtown LA between Washington Blvd station and Little Tokyo station. And SGV riders on Blue/A line will have two options for single transfer to reach Western part of Downtown LA - Union Station to Red/Purple OR Little Tokyo to Expo Line |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 14, 2015 14:29:44 GMT -8
And SGV riders on Blue/A line will have two options for single transfer to reach Western part of Downtown LA - Union Station to Red/Purple OR Little Tokyo to Expo Line Uh, wow. Make that 3 transfer options: Union Station to Red/Purple Union Station to Regional Connector via WSAB Little Tokyo to Regional Connector via E Line |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 14, 2015 15:09:36 GMT -8
I'm really happy they're recommending scrapping the earlier options for the newer ones. I think interlining with the Blue/A Line offers the most benefit, and it looks like they're leaning that way too.
|
|
|
|
Post by TVsGGreenlee on Sept 14, 2015 17:19:51 GMT -8
So the Southern Terminus will be located in Artesia... But isn't this project meant to go all the way to Santa Ana?
Is a "WSAB Phase 2" not being discussed at this time or would that a separate project that will require coordination with Orange County?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 14, 2015 18:28:28 GMT -8
So the Southern Terminus will be located in Artesia... But isn't this project meant to go all the way to Santa Ana? Is a "WSAB Phase 2" not being discussed at this time or would that a separate project that will require coordination with Orange County? Indeed, just as the hypothetical Gold Line Phase 3 extension to Ontario Airport would require coordination with San Bernardino County. And so far the numskulls at OCTA have shown little interest in cooperating with Metro, as they're moving forward with their own "streetcar" proposal that would take up the last leg of the Santa Ana ROW. So for now WSAB Phase 2 is virtually dead. And yet... something about the fact that it's ONLY going to be a streetcar tells me hope might not be completely lost. From what i've seen, streetcar infrastructure (like the kind that will be used for DTLA's streetcar) seems much simpler to install than standard light-rail. If that's the case, then conceivably reviving the project at some point down the line might be feasible, as relocating streetcar would be relatively quick and easy, no? Hmm, what do you guys think? Could the WSAB Phase 2 extension to Santa Ana Metrolink still be doable in the distant future? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2015 8:54:32 GMT -8
So the Southern Terminus will be located in Artesia... But isn't this project meant to go all the way to Santa Ana? Is a "WSAB Phase 2" not being discussed at this time or would that a separate project that will require coordination with Orange County? Indeed, just as the hypothetical Gold Line Phase 3 extension to Ontario Airport would require coordination with San Bernardino County. And so far the numskulls at OCTA have shown little interest in cooperating with Metro, as they're moving forward with their own "streetcar" proposal that would take up the last leg of the Santa Ana ROW. So for now WSAB Phase 2 is virtually dead. And yet... something about the fact that it's ONLY going to be a streetcar tells me hope might not be completely lost. From what i've seen, streetcar infrastructure (like the kind that will be used for DTLA's streetcar) seems much simpler to install than standard light-rail. If that's the case, then conceivably reviving the project at some point down the line might be feasible, as relocating streetcar would be relatively quick and easy, no? Hmm, what do you guys think? Could the WSAB Phase 2 extension to Santa Ana Metrolink still be doable in the distant future? I think it's possible, but truthfully, it's not a connection we need right away. It would be a great 'Phase 2' is we ever get that far. I'm happy that the 'L.A. to Green Line' segment is the one that's being prioritized now, as I thought it was always the segment between the Green Line and Santa Ana that was earmarked for Measure R. It's a bit pricey at $4.3 billion, but one option for reducing the budget would be cutting the line back to the Green Line (not sure what sense it makes to go to Artesia). Getting this to the Green Line, interlining with Blue/Expo, and connecting to Union Station are all fantastic, so I'm rooting for the Alameda alignment. A 'Phase 3' extension I'd like to see is the line continuing north, connecting at Chinatown station, then diverting off the Gold Line tracks near the maintenance facility and running out to Glendale/Burbank/Burbank Airport. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2015 9:24:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 15, 2015 10:04:45 GMT -8
Finally...something to chew on!!!
OK, I'm glad someone at Metro is going to work and making sense! Right off the bat, the two (2) new alternatives that use Pacific Bl. are long shots. Unless they've had a collective change of heart, Huntington Park and Vernon have both made it clear they would not like Pacific Bl. used for this. Vernon further stated they don't even want it underground. The whole area is industrial, so who knows what dirty little secret would be dug up. Huntington Park did suggest moving it onto Santa Fe Av. and then back onto the Randolph St./Whittier ROW. But this is moot now. The Blue Line/Alameda St. alternatives are the smart way to go. And what's this? Blue Line A (DTLA core) and B (core by-pass)? How appropriate that it would take the WSAB/PEROW to make that happen. Since we're on the subject, how about the Blue Line C and D: loops around DTLA that return to their origins--Azusa and Long Beach respectively. The same can be done for the Expo Line: Expo Line A--Santa Monica to East L.A. Expo Line B--Santa Monica to DTLA loop.
As far as the Orange County portion is concerned, I see whining the proportions of which have not been heard since the days of the failed Center Line project. Plus they'll be so enamored with their quaint little Santa Ana street car that they'll fail to take account of the bigger picture and let it languish.
As for Cerritos: Let'em choke on their own smog.
So what's left? That's right, deciding the future end point for the "Artesia Line": Silverlake or Glendale?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 15, 2015 10:16:30 GMT -8
So what's left? That's right, deciding the future end point for the "Artesia Line": Silverlake or Glendale? Extending it north will be tough because there is very little room at Union Station. The AA propose building an elevated station over the Blue/A line (currently Gold line) platform. Looking at the map, it seems that if the line is going north out of Union Station in an elevated position, it may interfere with CAHSR. Let's wait for the full EIR to see how they plan to get the line into Union Station from the south. As for the fantasy discussion... I wouldn't use Silverlake as a terminus. The terminus should either be somewhere on the Westside (via Sunset Blvd and Santa Monica Blvd - which will hit Silverlake on the way) or Glendale. |
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Sept 15, 2015 12:22:39 GMT -8
It seems to me that a lot could be spent on sophisticated PTC to allow the Blue Line and West Santa Ana lines to share the same track before the cost would approach the cost of a separate, especially elevated, right of way. My daughter lives in Oslo where several (5?) subway lines converge on a single line through the downtown subway with one minute headways. If this can work with old technology, it should work with modern PTC.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 15, 2015 12:24:12 GMT -8
Extending it north will be tough because there is very little room at Union Station. The AA propose building an elevated station over the Blue/A line (currently Gold line) platform. Looking at the map, it seems that if the line is going north out of Union Station in an elevated position, it may interfere with CAHSR. Let's wait for the full EIR to see how they plan to get the line into Union Station from the south. As for the fantasy discussion... I wouldn't use Silverlake as a terminus. The terminus should either be somewhere on the Westside (via Sunset Blvd and Santa Monica Blvd - which will hit Silverlake on the way) or Glendale. I thought the preferred alignment for CAHSR coming into LAUS was underground, not elevated? From the last I heard, it seemed like the "Under Alameda" and "Under Vignes" alignments provided the best connectivity and expansion options, since putting a bunch of HSR tracks over anywhere really makes a mess of the development potential for the surrounding area. Anyway, having an elevated station above the Blue/A line platform and extending that north with a crossover switch between the two lines doesn't necessarily preclude future development - one of my preferred fantasies would be a Glendale Line that branches off from the Gold Line tracks past Chinatown station, going elevated above the 110 with a stop at Echo Park / Dodger Stadium before following the old private right of way into Atwater and Glendale. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 15, 2015 12:43:41 GMT -8
I too think a northern route sharing Chinatown station and heading up to Glendale makes the most sense, if we can manage to interline them with short headways.
Also, I was curious, so I just looked it up -- apparently Measure R set aside $606 million for the WSAB, meaning there'd be a hefty portion that either Measure R2 or federal funds would have to make up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 15, 2015 14:19:09 GMT -8
Extending it north will be tough because there is very little room at Union Station. The AA propose building an elevated station over the Blue/A line (currently Gold line) platform. Looking at the map, it seems that if the line is going north out of Union Station in an elevated position, it may interfere with CAHSR. Let's wait for the full EIR to see how they plan to get the line into Union Station from the south. As for the fantasy discussion... I wouldn't use Silverlake as a terminus. The terminus should either be somewhere on the Westside (via Sunset Blvd and Santa Monica Blvd - which will hit Silverlake on the way) or Glendale. Why can't the line just run underground along Alameda all the way next to Union Station? To be honest, I always thought this should've happened to the original Gold Line (or "Blue" if you wanna be technical), rather than running on that slow viaduct across the 101 freeway. In my opinion, the current setup takes up valuable space that could be used for High Speed Rail, Metrolink (or even BRT) lines. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2015 14:39:47 GMT -8
Extending it north will be tough because there is very little room at Union Station. The AA propose building an elevated station over the Blue/A line (currently Gold line) platform. Looking at the map, it seems that if the line is going north out of Union Station in an elevated position, it may interfere with CAHSR. Let's wait for the full EIR to see how they plan to get the line into Union Station from the south. As for the fantasy discussion... I wouldn't use Silverlake as a terminus. The terminus should either be somewhere on the Westside (via Sunset Blvd and Santa Monica Blvd - which will hit Silverlake on the way) or Glendale. Why can't the line just run underground along Alameda all the way next to Union Station? To be honest, I always thought this should've happened to the original Gold Line (or "Blue" if you wanna be technical), rather than running on that slow viaduct across the 101 freeway. In my opinion, the current setup takes up valuable space that could be used for High Speed Rail, Metrolink (or even BRT) lines. An underground route to Union, preferable as it may be, is pretty much off the table at this point due to cost and possible interference with High-Speed Rail (if it is in fact going to be underground). In a perfect world, I would have preferred a brand new, 4-track Union Station LRT subway station which not only funneled in trains for Blue/Gold/Expo, but also Santa Ana and the often proposed 'Silver Line' LRT (and would have provided an infinitely easier way of transferring to the Red/Purple lines) trains. Not gonna happen, though. And while I like the idea of the line going to Glendale in the north, I still think it should continue west to Burbank, possibly even further. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 15, 2015 15:44:13 GMT -8
An underground route to Union, preferable as it may be, is pretty much off the table at this point due to cost and possible interference with High-Speed Rail (if it is in fact going to be underground). In a perfect world, I would have preferred a brand new, 4-track Union Station LRT subway station which not only funneled in trains for Blue/Gold/Expo, but also Santa Ana and the often proposed 'Silver Line' LRT (and would have provided an infinitely easier way of transferring to the Red/Purple lines) trains. Not gonna happen, though. And while I like the idea of the line going to Glendale in the north, I still think it should continue west to Burbank, possibly even further. Huh? How would running down Alameda right in front of Union Station interfere with the High-Speed Rail? I'm talking about the segment of Alameda between Alpine St. and the 101... If anything, going such a route would avoid the HSR mess altoghether... |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2015 17:21:29 GMT -8
Forgive me, I thought you meant somehow running it underground along the current alignment.
Yes, a subway under Alameda to Union would work, but how do we pay for it? And how would it continue on to Chinatown station?
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 15, 2015 17:30:43 GMT -8
I'm also curious about how Little Tokyo will feel about this.
Given their objections to the at-grade proposals for the regional connector (right though they were), I doubt the residents will be out to fully endorse a busy 'el' running right through the outskirts of their city.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cygnus on Sept 15, 2015 18:10:15 GMT -8
Up front: I am no sort of traffic engineer or urban planner in the slightest, just an enthusiast, but I'm confused by a lot of the choices, honestly.
It seems that the primary driver of mode selection for the entire length is "dont impact trucking, nothing else matters". Essentially the entire length of aerial or tunneled sections are through vast warehouse wastelands, then going at-grade for the sections that actually have pedestrians and heavy commute surface traffic. Seems backwards to me.
And the section from Little Tokyo to Union Station is profoundly befuddling. We're going to build a second aerial structure over the 110 and a stacked station? And thats despite the fact that that section of current track will always operate at .5x the headways of the Regional Connector (likely 5min, max)? It seems that there would be capacity to spare, and a tunnel connection and a third track at the current Gold Line station at Union would be sufficient while saving massive money and not requiring an aerial structure that might stymie future development desirability in the area. The only thing I can think of would be that the long term vision is extending this line North to destinations behind, but that seems so far away (2050+) as to be unrealistic considerations.
Don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly excited to see the plans developing and I think the potential of the line is massive... I'm just confused by some of the choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 15, 2015 19:57:57 GMT -8
I'm so glad I took the time to go through the Final Executive Summery! It seems the East Bank and the West Bank 3 alignments are not being recommended for further study. Thank goodness, they were both awful. The new Green Line to WSAB transfer station was found to be feasible. There are also a combined 1620 parking stalls planned.
What's really going to throw everything off is if Metro forces the route to serve the Arts District. That area is supposed to be getting two (2) new Red/Purple Line Stations. The stacked station platforms: I think it's just a matter of aesthetics. Either we'll learn to love the concept or the alignment will be routed to avoid LAUS altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 15, 2015 20:20:29 GMT -8
The 4+ billion dollar price tag in 2015 dollars gives me pause. That's 250 million per mile, for light rail mainly along existing freight rail alignments, and there are less than 1 dozen new stations. Vancouver, Canada recently built a mostly underground, cut-and cover subway for significantly less: 2 billion for 12 miles with 15 stations (1/2 underground, half elevated) in 2009. And it has twice the projected ridership of this line (3 times the ridership per mile). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_LineAt the projected costs, it will cost over $100,000 per rider. I would think it should be possible to build 18 miles for $1 billion if it were mostly at grade and construction costs were reasonable, as in Canada and Europe. That would be cost-effective and should qualify for federal grants. I'm not sure that this plan is cost-effective enough to get funding. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 15, 2015 23:13:56 GMT -8
And while I like the idea of the line going to Glendale in the north, I still think it should continue west to Burbank, possibly even further. Reason I mentioned Glendale is that the old PE Glendale ROW is still there up in the hills above the 2 Freeway, and the piers of the old LA River bridge still exist (but current plans are to turn that into a ped/cyclist bridge). Still, no reason why that couldn't be eventually revived to form a line going into the heart of Glendale via Brand Blvd, then turning west along Glenoaks into the heart of downtown Burbank. It would also provide a good transfer opportunity to the eventual link between the Orange Line and Pasadena regardless of what form that takes; personally I'd love to see dedicated BRT along Colorado Blvd, which would mean the transfer point would be Brand/Colorado right outside the Americana - which is arguably TOD-like. I don't like the frequent suggestion that a Glendale/Burbank LRT should use the Metrolink ROW, because that's where CAHSR is going to wind up going, and the Metrolink/freight ROW runs through lovely industrial areas anyway - hardly an attractor for LRT ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 16, 2015 2:22:51 GMT -8
The Urbanize.LA article with color pictures of the alignments has helped to clarify the reasons for the high cost.
All of the alignments are tunnels or aerial viaducts from Union Station to Vernon, or farther, except for the excluded East Bank option.
The shortest option has 4 miles of tunnel and viaduct in that section, while the West Bank Alameda option has no tunnels but 6 miles of viaduct.
Even the East Bank option had several miles of unnecessary viaducts thru industrial neighborhoods in Vernon and Huntington, even though there is a single-track freight line there at grade with plenty of room in the right-of-way. Cyngus is right, "the primary driver of mode selection for the entire length is "don't impact trucking, nothing else matters".
The maps on Urbanize don't show if the alignment along the San Pedro branch and the old Pacific Electric right-of-way would be at grade or elevated, but based on the prior alternatives analysis form SCAG in 2010, the central and southern sections will be 92% at grade and 8% elevated (at major intersections). These areas were planned to cost 1/3 as much as the northern alignment in that document, suggesting that the heavy use of grade separation in the main reason for the high cost.
Here is the cost estimate breakdown by alternative (each of which include the same alignment from to Artesia/Cerritos to the south):
Table 4-1: Preliminary Cost Comparison by Alternative (costs in $ millions)
Cost Categories WEST SANTA ANA BRANCH TRANSIT CORRIDOR - ALTERNATIVES
EastBank | WestBank3 | Pacific/Alameda | Pacific/Vignes | Alameda | Alameda/Vignes
Guideway and track: $839.6 | $1,088.5 | $1,096.6 | $1,132.4 | $1,090.8 | $1,165.3
Stations, stops, terminals $238.0 | $382.9 | $411.5 | $391.7 | $288.9 | $440.0
Support facilities $250.7 | (same all alignments)
Sitework and special $262.8 | $246.1 | $253.6 | $251.0 | $268.6 | $252.1
Systems $610.1 | $596.9 | $618.8 | $604.2 | $648.4 | $650.8
ROW, land $229.4 | $217.6 | $225.0 | $222.9 | $235.7 | $237.8
Vehicles $294.0 (Same all alignments)
Professional services $726.5 $846.5 $868.4 $867.8 $840.5 $910.5
Unallocated contingency $345.2 $392.3 $401.9 $401.5 $391.8 $420.1
Total Cost (2015 dollars) $3,796.3 $4,315.5 $4,420.5 $4,416.2 $ $4,309.4 $4,621.3
Total Distance in Miles 18.53 17.78 18.25 18.12 18.93 19.06
Total Cost per Mile $204.9 $242.7 $242.2 $243.7 $227.6 $242.5
Some costs are fixed no matter the alignment: (vehicles and support facilities), and some are largely independent of grade separation (ROW/Land costs), but that adds up to less than $750 million. Elevated stations, guideways and systems (electrification etc) are more expensive, and professional services and contingency scale with total construction costs.
If one of the alternatives could have the amount of grade separation reduced to 8% of the alignment, like the southern sections, the total cost of the project could be cut in half. This would only slow down the train in the short street-running section on Alameda; the rest of the alignment will be private right-of-way with 55+ mph top speed, whether at grade or elevated. Crossing gates, as along the Blue Line, can keep the trains moving. A $2 billion dollar cost would still by high compared to construction in other countries, but it might be cost-effective enough to get federal support.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 16, 2015 9:11:13 GMT -8
Forgive me, I thought you meant somehow running it underground along the current alignment. Yes, a subway under Alameda to Union would work, but how do we pay for it? And how would it continue on to Chinatown station? Obviously paying for it is another story. But then it looks like we're already going to be paying for another link to Union Station with WSAB, anyway. I'm sure a Union Station-adjacent subway could resurface into an viaduct at some point north of Cesar Chavez, but if only there was some way to connect it to the existing Gold Line aerial segment without disrupting existing services... Reason I mentioned Glendale is that the old PE Glendale ROW is still there up in the hills above the 2 Freeway, and the piers of the old LA River bridge still exist (but current plans are to turn that into a ped/cyclist bridge). You could still run it on Glendale Blvd, turn onto Rowena, and then turn onto Hyperion (with a station there) and then send it to Glendale via Brand. Wasn't this the route the original PE line took as it exited the Belmont Tunnel and headed into Echo Park? Yeah, to me that never made sense. A concept similar to the old "Yellow Line" seemed better, as it would go through more residential neighborhoods. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 16, 2015 9:34:53 GMT -8
It seems to me that a lot could be spent on sophisticated PTC to allow the Blue Line and West Santa Ana lines to share the same track before the cost would approach the cost of a separate, especially elevated, right of way. My daughter lives in Oslo where several (5?) subway lines converge on a single line through the downtown subway with one minute headways. If this can work with old technology, it should work with modern PTC. If the Blue Line were already grade separated, you might have a point. Crossing gates with trains every 2-3 minutes each direction would impact cross traffic pretty heavily. It will be weird to have the viaduct be carrying fewer trains than the at-grade (I'm doubting WSAB will get 5-minute headways at the same time Blue/Expo do), but the viaduct needs to get built no matter what. It would be good if they could have some sort of flying junction between Slauson and Vernon to allow for more complicated service patterns. Maybe the short line trains from Willow could go along Washington while the ones coming all the way from DTLB go up Alameda, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by test on Sept 16, 2015 10:01:43 GMT -8
quadruple tracks between Slauson and Washington Square,
there two crossover-platforms for quick exchanges,
2 miles of track to Little Tokio subway station!
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 16, 2015 11:58:04 GMT -8
Wasn't this the route the original PE line took as it exited the Belmont Tunnel and headed into Echo Park? Yes. Check out the Yellow Line I sketched out on this map. It would pretty much follow the old PE ROW up to Echo Park, where it would turn off Glendale Blvd to follow Sunset underground, emerge at-grade at Dodger Stadium, and then continue elevated to Chinatown. The only thing I'm not sure about is the grade limits for such an alignment, since it would be pretty steep climbing up over the 110. From a ridership standpoint, it still makes perfect sense - it hits some of the densest commercial and residential districts in the area. Glenoaks is lined by apartment buildings and multiplexes on both sides, and Brand of course is Glendale's commercial core. Plus it could drop riders off right at Dodger Stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 16, 2015 20:33:29 GMT -8
I love the idea of running a future phase down Glenoaks in Burbank, though I think there would be massive opposition from the valley locals ("They're tearing out the trees!" "Think of the children!").
The other issue with Glenoaks is that the line would need to tunnel at least part of the way since 1) Glenoaks narrows near Santa Anita, and 2) it needs to connect to the Metrolink station.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 17, 2015 16:13:45 GMT -8
Regarding the need for grade separation (viaduct) and related costs, here is my take...
The AA study only provide analysis for new construction. It didn't really take into account impact of operation on existing system.
A full EIR on WSAB will probably look at impact to Blue Line operation and (I'm leaping to a conclusion... I know) analyze the overall Alameda corridor performance with some or all Blue Line trains running in the viaduct.
So the extra $2 billion or so that may be attributable to viaduct construction can be viewed as both an investment in WSAB, and an upgrade to Blue Line. Still pricey... but a lot more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 18, 2015 9:24:44 GMT -8
I like how you think bzcat; and thank you.
As with every Metro rail project we build in L.A. this one will also be built in segments. MOS 1 from the LAUS to the WSAB/Green Line transfer station and MOS 2 from the transfer station to Pioneer Station in Artesia (formerly Bloomfield Station in Cerritos). With Cerritos opting out, maybe there's potential for Metro to just build the whole thing all at once. Although this leaves me wondering: What happens if Orange County seriously decides to get their portion of the route built, but the line stops in Artesia?
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 18, 2015 10:36:45 GMT -8
Regarding the need for grade separation (viaduct) and related costs, here is my take... The AA study only provide analysis for new construction. It didn't really take into account impact of operation on existing system. A full EIR on WSAB will probably look at impact to Blue Line operation and (I'm leaping to a conclusion... I know) analyze the overall Alameda corridor performance with some or all Blue Line trains running in the viaduct. So the extra $2 billion or so that may be attributable to viaduct construction can be viewed as both an investment in WSAB, and an upgrade to Blue Line. Still pricey... but a lot more reasonable. However the flip-side of the extra cost is that if (that's a big if) the shared viaduct would be used for both Blue Line and WSAB operations then these extra costs have an even greater utility. This provides a speed, safety and capacity upgrade for both lines and have the potential to get Federal "New Starts" funding. As for Cerritos, they still have a station at 183rd/Gridley (Los Cerritos Center) so Cerritos is still engaged. The one area that will lure Orange County into this is Cypress College students where the campus is adjacent to the Right of Way and a station there would be a boon to even reduce the parking demands at the other stations in Artesia and Cerritos. |
|
