|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 18, 2015 10:41:21 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. I think Metro is being overly conservative because this is the base technical refinement without being in the EIR phase. For example they may see that some grade separations are not needed or they may combine the efforts and end the line at the LA River where a possible Red/Purple Line station could go and interface to provide a connection. |
|
|
|
Post by MARK R. JOHNSTON on Sept 19, 2015 18:28:46 GMT -8
Exactly what I felt from the beginning and commented on at the original WSAB public hearings. Blue line comes up to Washington and continues via Alameda to Union Station. WSAB comes over to the Blue at Slauson Ave, continues along to Washington and then takes the current route of the Blue Line up Washington/Flower to 7th/Fig. to reach the Purple/Red for transfers. I would turn back the WASB trains at this point as the Expo/ELA will cover the rest of the route. THIS would be the perfect opportunity to fix a big problem with the Blue at least from Slauson to Washington. They want to put the WASB on elevated tracks along side the Blue at this point. WHY not do both and eliminate a good stretch of grade crossings for both lines? 4 tracks/2 platforms. Frequency so high on the Blue you will need separate but parallel tracks for the WSAB line. You could build the WASB side first, then temporarily run the BLUE trains on those tracks while you go back and elevate the existing BLUE. Then put all 4 in service.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 21, 2015 14:24:30 GMT -8
Thanks Jerard for the additional point regarding Federal funding.
So if the viaduct is shared between the two lines, it actually improves our odds of Federal funding? I hate the use the term slam dunk... but I think this time it is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 21, 2015 14:57:41 GMT -8
OK, I had never considered Metro could go with a stacked track/station configuration over the pre-existing Blue Line. The wording in the Final Executive Summery does not use the word "share(d)." This could be very troubling. On the one hand this quad track configuration would keep one line from interfering with the other's headways. On the other hand, there's a cost savings if tracks and stations (Slauson, Vernon, and Washington) are shared. Plus, you wouldn't have to run from one platform to the other if you needed to catch the other line. The only other outcome I can think of is that they're going to share tracks but divide the stations into dedicated north-bound and south-bound platforms. With the added WSAB patronage, this configuration makes more sense to me. You're still building a new platform, but at least you won't be building a second set of tracks. It's not as though the same idea isn't floated around periodically for Pico Station. At some point, especially after the Connector opens, station platform separations like this will have to be considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 22, 2015 10:23:28 GMT -8
It's too early to predict what Metro will do with station configuration and number of platforms, or how it will operated the services. The AA Study only outlines where the construction may take place. Let them do the EIR first... all those things you mentioned will be evaluated and studied in detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 2, 2017 16:41:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 8, 2017 12:22:52 GMT -8
Hmm? I don't know how I feel about Kiewet and Skanska soliciting business from Metro. On the one had it could speed up the project. On the other hand they could have masterminded some kind of plan to partner up if one or the other get the contract. Or they're just a bunch of nice people looking out for Metro's and LA's interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 8, 2017 12:27:40 GMT -8
They are doing it to make money obviously. If these projects were done under PPP, you can expect premium fares for a limited time (say 20 years). Metro (or a private operator) will collect the fare and split it with the contractor.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 20, 2017 18:17:56 GMT -8
This project is an excellent opportunity to improve the Blue Line ROW from Slauson to Washington with local/express tracks. Slauson and Washington stations could be elevated, with four tracks, like so
X P L : L P X
where X = express, L = local, P = platform.
One of these stations could have a center platform to facilitate turnbacks:
X P L P L P X
In between Washington and Vernon, the local tracks would go down to grade, just like they do now. And the express tracks would stay elevated, and ride above the local tracks.
I think that entire stretch could be built with little disruption to the Blue Line, until it comes time to reconnect everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Mar 22, 2017 9:29:14 GMT -8
If WSAB was coming in on its original trajectory (the one now occupied by the 105), express service between Washington and Watts would be useful (since you could easily gain 5+ minutes, especially if the local tracks had more New York/Chicago-style stop distances), but not in the proposed configuration, which would only skip one station. 4-tracking is nice to prevent conflicts due to interlining, but skipping Vernon only saves a minute or two at the expense of forcing transfers.
I don't see how a center platform helps facilitate turnbacks. Whoever's getting off the train that's short-turning is not going to be changing direction with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Apr 19, 2017 19:07:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Apr 19, 2017 20:33:29 GMT -8
What are the differences in travel times?
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 19, 2017 20:37:50 GMT -8
I completely agree. As long as a red line arts district station (or two) happens (and it feels like it will), then Alameda's the best. It gives the most flexibility for transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 20, 2017 10:22:07 GMT -8
The "Alameda" option is the 3rd image below (light purple line on the map). My only concern is that this option shows an elevated viaduct continuing from Union Station through Little Tokyo and down Alameda. It seems like the community there will be resistant to yet another round of Metro construction. And the fact that due to Metro's short sighted planning, this will be the third time we are building a station at the same location. Think of all the money wasted... That being said, I think Alameda option is still the best - it likely will have highest ridership, has good transfer to Expo line at Little Tokyo, and offers potential to interline with Blue Line to relieve overcrowding and maybe offer express service. But it does miss the heart of Arts District but that may be ok if the Red/Purple line ends up being extended like you mentioned.     |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 20, 2017 10:37:50 GMT -8
The two Vignes options seem to create more problems than they solve sending people to union station to then back track down the Santa Ana line.
I like the alameda line so long as it is possible to route the blue line down the alameda route and end blue line service through the regional connector and instead run a regional circulator on the downtown circle track (since there would now be available capacity if the blue line runs directly south)
However what I proposed is a bad idea for actual riders , it sounds lovely from a birds eye view fperspective, but riders aren't going to union station as an end point destination, they're riding the blue line because of the downtown destinations, and forcing them to transfer to a downtown circulator would be a worse situation, even if it looks pretty on a map! :-p
So long as it's not a vignes route I'm fine with either of the other two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 20, 2017 10:39:13 GMT -8
Can't they just use the existing at-grade LT station?
|
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Apr 20, 2017 12:11:39 GMT -8
I agree about Alameda. I hope that the design would call for crossovers between the lines at Slauson and/or Washington to allow for future service changes (e.g., for Santa Ana service to go to 7th Street, Blue Line to go directly to Union Station) to meet destination changes we don't foresee.
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Apr 20, 2017 13:27:40 GMT -8
What are the differences in travel times? I imagine the two Blue Line / Alameda option are a good deal slower as they stop at 3 additional stations, but I also imagine the ridership will be a good deal higher. Both because of Blue line transfers, as well as the fact that the Pacific/Vernon station shown on the Santa Fe options is ... not exactly what I would call a bustling location:  In all fairness, the area around the proposed 7th and Alameda stop doesn't look great from the air either. |
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Apr 20, 2017 14:38:36 GMT -8
This would restore, in different form, portions of the of the LARy/LATL/MTA V and J lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 20, 2017 15:06:51 GMT -8
In all fairness, the area around the proposed 7th and Alameda stop doesn't look great from the air either. This area's getting ready to absolutely explode with development this year and next, though. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2017 15:28:25 GMT -8
The between the tradeoff Alameda and Alameda/Vignes options is connectivity vs expansiveness. The Alameda option allows for connections in Little Tokyo. The Alameda/Vignes option loses that connectivity, but in exchange, it extends Metro Rail to connect to a wider area.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 21, 2017 11:09:10 GMT -8
In all fairness, the area around the proposed 7th and Alameda stop doesn't look great from the air either. This area's getting ready to absolutely explode with development this year and next, though. Alameda in the Arts District is changing day by day: Twin luxury 58-story towers to rise at Alameda at 6th St Can't say if million dollar condo dwellers will climb on Metro Rail trains or use the Greyhound station on 7th/Alameda though
UrbanizeLA: New Details for Suncal's $2-Billion 6AM Development
I do favor the purple alignment because it uses the existing Gold Line bridge over the 101, is elevated down Alameda where it could capitalize on the rising density, and boosts connections to Blue Line for a few stations. It should be a pretty straight and fast line if the staff chooses the purple alignment. It would be cool if they could look into a Circle route because the tracks would exist on the modern day Blue/Gold and future WSAB, like the Circle Line in London that encircles centre city. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 21, 2017 12:06:35 GMT -8
It would be cool if they could look into a Circle route because the tracks would exist on the modern day Blue/Gold and future WSAB, like the Circle Line in London that encircles centre city. The problem with circle routes though is that they can be a nightmare to operate, especially if the circle is partially interlined, like both in London and in this scenario. I lived off of a Circle/Met/H&C stop in London for a semester in college, and there were a ton of delays as a result of the complexity. In fact, since then, they've actually change the circle into a spiral service to alleviate the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 21, 2017 12:20:08 GMT -8
It would be cool if they could look into a Circle route because the tracks would exist on the modern day Blue/Gold and future WSAB, like the Circle Line in London that encircles centre city. The problem with circle routes though is that they can be a nightmare to operate, especially if the circle is partially interlined, like both in London and in this scenario. I lived off of a Circle/Met/H&C stop in London for a semester in college, and there were a ton of delays as a result of the complexity. In fact, since then, they've actually change the circle into a spiral service to alleviate the problem. I rode the London Circle Line just last month and I only rode it a handful of times so I can't comment on how it works operationally but it was very handy to get from Euston Sq/Kings Cross to Paddington or anywhere central with minimal transfers. I experienced no delays, but trains did have nice open gangways! In LA it would certainly have to be bigger, but nonetheless I throw it in the nice to have but never will happen category in LA, or NY for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 21, 2017 18:22:08 GMT -8
The problem with circle routes though is that they can be a nightmare to operate, especially if the circle is partially interlined, like both in London and in this scenario. I lived off of a Circle/Met/H&C stop in London for a semester in college, and there were a ton of delays as a result of the complexity. In fact, since then, they've actually change the circle into a spiral service to alleviate the problem. I rode the London Circle Line just last month and I only rode it a handful of times so I can't comment on how it works operationally but it was very handy to get from Euston Sq/Kings Cross to Paddington or anywhere central with minimal transfers. I experienced no delays, but trains did have nice open gangways! In LA it would certainly have to be bigger, but nonetheless I throw it in the nice to have but never will happen category in LA, or NY for that matter. Yeah, I mean it works better now in London specifically because they changed it from a circle to spiral. For example, if you wanted to go from Baker Street to Notting Hill Gate, you'd actually have to change trains at Edgware Rd., despite your origin point and destination both being on the Circle Line. But like you say, moot point anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 19, 2017 23:17:30 GMT -8
I've been looking at this line in the context of more extensive long-range plans for Metro. The elevated Alameda routing on the northern end if defintely the best choice, short of a new subway under downtown. However, the Blue Line should also be grade-separated in the shared section, with 4 tracks side-by-side and 2 center platforms, to allow cross-platform transfers, at least at Washington station. Several of the station locations are disappointing. In downtown, there should be 2 stations: at 6th and Olympic, instead of only 1 at 7th. There will be a whole mile between stations in that case, which will complicate transfers and leave a large area a long walk away from a station. in Bell, there should be an additional station at Gage; the popluation density in Bell and Maywood is very high. The last station before the Green Line is planned at Gardendale, but the intersection of Imperial Hwy and Garfield is 1/2 mile away and will have many more bus transfers, and more development potential. The stations at Paramount and Bellflower leave a 3 mile gap! There should be a station in the middle at Lakewood Blvd, a major north-south street and bus route. I also hope Metro considers how the trains will reach Union Station, and plan for the route to continue north, perhaps through-routing with a future line northwest on Sunset blvd to Santa Monica blvd:  |
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on Oct 21, 2017 13:22:01 GMT -8
I've been looking at this line in the context of more extensive long-range plans for Metro. The elevated Alameda routing on the northern end if defintely the best choice, short of a new subway under downtown. However, the Blue Line should also be grade-separated in the shared section, with 4 tracks side-by-side and 2 center platforms, to allow cross-platform transfers, at least at Washington station. Several of the station locations are disappointing. In downtown, there should be 2 stations: at 6th and Olympic, instead of only 1 at 7th. There will be a whole mile between stations in that case, which will complicate transfers and leave a large area a long walk away from a station. in Bell, there should be an additional station at Gage; the popluation density in Bell and Maywood is very high. The last station before the Green Line is planned at Gardendale, but the intersection of Imperial Hwy and Garfield is 1/2 mile away and will have many more bus transfers, and more development potential. The stations at Paramount and Bellflower leave a 3 mile gap! There should be a station in the middle at Lakewood Blvd, a major north-south street and bus route. I also hope Metro considers how the trains will reach Union Station, and plan for the route to continue north, perhaps through-routing with a future line northwest on Sunset blvd to Santa Monica blvd: Metro has a precedent for consciously under-serving the most transit-deserving regions of the county in ways so overt it lays bare the implicit bias in their planning decisions. Think of how the Green line crosses the major arteries of Western and Atlantic without a stop (I wonder how the BRU was ever able to accuse them of transit racism). I only expected as much from WSAB. There's a certain irony in metro planning urban-grade light rail in the far eastern reaches of the SG and Pomona valleys, Metrolink's usual domain (quite literally when they interline from La Verne to Montclair), but for the highly dense, transit dependent, and closer-afield gateway cities, planning regional rail-like stop spacing. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 11, 2018 9:29:21 GMT -8
Woah. Lots of new options now being considered by metro. Not sure what initiated such drastic reconsiderations but I like it. They say that there is community opposition to aerial tracks on alameda. So I guess if they have to go underground that opens up othe possibilities. Also the arts district really wants a station and this gives them much better options with locations on Santa Fe. I also suspect that this may have something to do with the city’s amazon bid. Extremely unlikely that we get HQ2, but it would make sense that Row DTLA and 6am were involved in one of the bids. Metro presentation |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 11, 2018 20:15:42 GMT -8
There's a Wholefoods distribution wearhouse in Vernon. So tying one to the other wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
OK, it seems to me that all these communities are saying one thing and the same thing: "PUT IT UNDERGROUND!" If trenching/tunneling is not going to work, then maybe this whole project should be temporarily suspended in favor of extending the Red/Purple Line under Pacific/Long Beach Bl. to the Green Line. Yes, this would suck for Bell, Cudahy, Downey, Paramount, Artesia, and Cerritos. However, the DTLA Arts Dist., Huntington Park, Vernon, and Southgate would still benefit. And in this case, so would unincorporated Walnut Park and Lynwood.
I use to get so thrilled to see this tread light up. Now, not so much anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 12, 2018 14:55:37 GMT -8
Woah. Lots of new options now being considered by metro. Not sure what initiated such drastic reconsiderations but I like it. They say that there is community opposition to aerial tracks on alameda. So I guess if they have to go underground that opens up othe possibilities. Also the arts district really wants a station and this gives them much better options with locations on Santa Fe. I also suspect that this may have something to do with the city’s amazon bid. Extremely unlikely that we get HQ2, but it would make sense that Row DTLA and 6am were involved in one of the bids. Metro presentationForget Art District... they are going to get 1, probably 2 Red/Purple line stations so they will end up with something much better than having this line go thru Art District and getting forced transfers at Union Station and back track. ULA has a summary: urbanize.la/post/metro-considers-new-alignments-west-santa-ana-branch Apparently there is now strong resistence from Downtown LA stakeholders to allow elevated line down Alameda thru Little Tokyo to Union Station. So Metro is going to look into ending the line to 5th/Flower where the "missing" Expo/Blue line station would have been located. I take that to mean that if this route is chosen, Metro will build a transfer station at 5th/Flower instead of just a terminal station. One minor quibble... No transfer station to Red/Purple line at Pershing Square - although not that hard to envision an extra stop near 5th/Hill. The geometry of ending the line at 5th/Flower also sets up nicely for further extension of this line towards West LA or Northeast LA. I can see three equally good option of extending the line: 1. From 5th/Flower, head west across 110 freeway, then turn southwest towards Pico Union, and then west on Pico Blvd towards Mid City, then on Venice Blvd to Venice Beach. 2. From 5th/Flower, head west across 110 freeway, then turn northwest towards Echo Park, then Sunset Blvd thru Silver Lake, and then Santa Monica Blvd to Hollywood and beyond (Century City perhaps?) 3. From 5th/Flower, head west across 110 freeway, then turn northwest towards Echo Park, then Alvarado St/Glendale Blvd to Atwater Village and Downtown Glendale. So if you can't tell already, I like the idea of ending the line at Financial District about 1000 times better than Union Station. It is one of those times that NIMBY intransigence is going to give us a better outcome... (!) |
|
