LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by homebucket

It looks like most of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor alignment proposals have it terminating at LAX. I suppose it could theoretically continue eastwards, on top of, or under either Arbor Vitae or Century to the sports complex. Are there any plans that have mentioned that?

The BYD Skyrail Monorail proposal mentions the possibility to expand their system to the stadiums deep in their documents. They were thinking about the bigger picture and getting both the Sepulveda and Inglewood contracts and having them be one line... I'm "nerdy" enough (read: Curious) to like to read through the hundred page documents. and I actually have the Sepulveda Transit Partners (Bechtel) 380 page document forever open as one of my windows on my laptop because its my favorite

Metro and Inglewood can think the same way about these corridors... Come on Mayor James Butts and Inglewood city council



**UPDATE** Found the map. I can't believe the lack of care and rigor they had with mapping Metro's existing lines... this alone devalues BYD's proposal in my eyes... but hopefully they sparked the conversations with Inglewood that put this in their minds...

[Busy Bee]

I'm "nerdy" enough (read: Curious) to like to read through the hundred page documents. and I actually have the Sepulveda Transit Partners (Bechtel) 380 page document forever open as one of my windows on my laptop because its my favorite

No shame

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

That may be a factor, but isn't another problem for MARTA the fact that the Georgia state government is hostile to Atlanta and to anything it sees as primarily benefitting Atlanta city residents? I've read that the state's support for MARTA has been nil, hence the lack of extensions to the system after its initial build-out.

Extensions outside of I-285 would be nice things to have but won't fix the fundamental problem with the system, which is that outside of downtown, very few stations are situated in walkable neighborhood business districts where TOD can be motivated by a subway station. Instead, too many stations are next to railroad tracks or in random spots.

It doesn't matter if it's heavy rail or slower light rail - bad station locations simply don't motivate TOD's or significant ridership anywhere outside of land-restricted metros like New York. They're just bus stops - very, very expensive bus stops.

[craigs]

Metro to Approve Early Phase of Union Station Run-Through Tracks Construction

Joe Linton
Streetsblog Los Angeles
May 24, 2022



This Thursday, the Metro board is expected to greenlight an initial preconstruction phase for the Union Station’s run-through tracks. The long-anticipated, much-needed project, called “Link US,” will upgrade Union Station to create efficiencies for Metrolink and Amtrak, and to prepare for future high-speed rail.

Since its opening in 1939, Union Station has operated with inefficient stub-end tracks, where trains nose in to the station and then have to reverse to get out. Metro estimates that fixing this issue via Link US will increase Union Station capacity (from 180 to 278 trains daily) and reduce train dwell times (from twenty to five minutes).

The Link US improvements are a costly mega-project: they include new bridge structures over and along the 101 Freeway and new rail tracks in and along a historic structure (which is atop sensitive archeological resources), all of it needing to be built while keeping current trains operating.



The Metro board approved Link US environmental studies (under CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act) in 2019, opting for a somewhat trimmed project scope that took an early estimated $3 billion cost down to the current $2.3 billion estimate.

The Link US project is being broken up into several phases. The initial, funded Phase A includes construction of the bridge over the 101 Freeway and two initial run-through tracks. A future, not-yet-funded Phase B includes raising the main platform area, building new interior concourse areas, and adding additional run-through tracks.

As the run-through tracks will benefit planned high-speed rail, the CA High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) is a funding partner on the project, contributing $423 million. According to Metro’s staff report, additional project funds have come from the state’s Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP – $227 million), the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP – $61 million), local Measure R Commuter Rail Funds ($51 million), a CAHSRA planning grant ($19 million), and a couple of other smaller sources.

This week’s board item would approve the terms of the $423 million CAHSRA funding, as well as approve a $298 million “Partial Preconstruction Phase” project budget.

The partial preconstruction phase would finalize design and engineering under a Construction Management/General Contractor (CMGC) delivery process, as well as complete real estate acquisitions across from Union Station (south of the 101 Freeway).

Metro’s timeline shows completion of federal environmental studies (under NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act) this summer, with Phase A construction anticipated to get underway in late 2023.

The critically important Link US upgrades represent just one way that the CAHSRA is supporting rail infrastructure improvements in L.A. County to prepare for the ultimate arrival of the state’s high-speed rail system, which has more than a hundred miles under construction in the Central Valley. Some anti-high-speed rail State Assembly Democrats, including Anthony Rendon and Laura Friedman, point to a supposed lack of CAHSRA investment in southern California rail as a pretext to deny and delay high-speed rail funding. But CAHSRA is already supporting numerous rail projects in L.A. County – including grade separation construction underway at Rosecrans-Marquardt in Santa Fe Springs, Link US construction planned at Union Station, support for other Metro rail projects (including contributing funds to the Regional Connector subway), and support for planning additional projects like the Doran Street and Broadway/Brazil Grade Separation Project.

The Metro board will meet this Thursday at 10 a.m. to vote on Link US, as well as the FY23 budget, the cancellation of the 710 Freeway widening, and more. Find the full agenda and staff reports at the Metro board webpage.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

A very important project for sure. Glad to see it moving forward albeit incrementally

[mattropolis]

Why does the whole rail yard need to be raised? Is that necessary for the trains to be able to go over the new viaduct?

If it's not necessary, then it seems to needlessly increase the cost.

[numble]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

Why does the whole rail yard need to be raised? Is that necessary for the trains to be able to go over the new viaduct?

If it's not necessary, then it seems to needlessly increase the cost.

From the EIR, the 2 reasons are to accommodate HSR’s elevated platforms and Caltrans clearance standards.

All lead tracks through the throat, as well as the station tracks they serve (new Tracks 3 through 14, respectively), would be raised to a maximum of 15 feet at an approximate 0.7 percent maximum grade to accommodate elevated platforms.

In the full build-out condition, the rail yard would include 14 tracks similar to the existing condition. Tracks 1 and 2 serving the Gold Line would remain at the current elevation. Tracks 3 through 14 would be raised by approximately 15 feet and constructed at a 0.0 percent (level) grade to meet the required run-through track clearances over the El Monte Busway and US-101 (16.5 feet minimum clearance per Caltrans standards).

[craigs]

Originally Posted by numble

From the EIR, the 2 reasons are to accommodate HSR’s elevated platforms and Caltrans clearance standards.

That makes sense.

[mattropolis]

Thanks numble. I took a look at Google Street View, and I can see that now.

[CaliNative]

Latest news on aerial gondola to Dodger Stadium from Union Station? Anything? That would really be useful not only for game days but if they build housing on part of the stadium parking lots. I read there was some opposition in Chinatown.

Also, is there anything happening on proposals to extend transit lines into super dense West Hollywood and neighboring areas?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Not the same program, but the Obama-era TIGER program worked in a similar way. That program was designed to channel money directly from the executive branch to municipal governments so as to circumvent obstructionism by Republican-controlled state governments.

However, the city where I live elected a Tea Party Democrat (yes, such a thing existed) and he wasted the TIGER grant applications on pet projects for his rich donors. None of the projects had any chance of winning (he actually submitted a vehicular bridge proposal with no bike or public transportation feature for a federal grant aimed at...bikes and public transportation), but he got to tell his donors that "he tried".

The problem with the way rail is funded in the United States since about 1980 is that the selection process has favored light rail that uses existing ROW's (like the Expo Line). With 30 years of hindsight, we know that light railways have failed to transform any U.S. city, even Portland and Dallas, where they have built very large networks.

Traditional subways, by contrast, can and do completely transform cities when built on a large scale, but we only have two postwar examples in the United States - Washington and San Francisco.

I was in Miami last weekend for the first time in 20 years and the Metrorail system, despite being completely grade separated and very fast, has failed to significantly shape that city in the 40 years that it has been in operation. Miami Beach, which has no rail transit, is somehow significantly more dense than Miami, which does.

I think the heavy rail lines in L.A. qualify as a "large scale" post war heavy rail subway project, once the Purple Line extension is complete. The BART system is mostly above ground except for SF and parts of places like Oakland, and is often plagued with problems because it is old. In a way, L.A. has a better system because it is so much newer, although shorter. When you add in the light rail and metrolink, L.A. has done rather well and the total system trackage is right up there. By Olympics time it will be really useful way to get around the area if they get the north-south line connecting the Valley to the Westside built. Hopefully in the future Orange County will develop some light rail connecting to the regional system. Metrolink is good, but not enough.

San Diego has a useful regional light rail system now that the extension to UCSD and UTC has been completed. Need one more extension...to north county, either along the coast to Oceanside or inland to Escondido. The Sprinter already connects Oceanside and Escondido. Coaster diesel trains run from Oceanside to SD, but the schedule is limited.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Latest news on aerial gondola to Dodger Stadium from Union Station? Anything? That would really be useful not only for game days but if they build housing on part of the stadium parking lots. I read there was some opposition in Chinatown.

Also, is there anything happening on proposals to extend transit lines into super dense West Hollywood and neighboring areas?

The gondola is still in the scoping phase, which is the initial environmental phase. After that it has the draft environmental impact (DEIR) and final EIR to complete. All of that usually takes metro 5+ years, but I think that this should go quicker.

The Crenshaw Northern extension is the only project that I'm aware of being studied for West Hollywood. That's in the DEIR phase and could theoretically be cleared to begin construction in the next few years. Unfortunately the current funding mechanism projects that project being funded in something like 25 years. They're going through the motions and hoping that extra money is found somewhere to start within the next decade.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I think the heavy rail lines in L.A. qualify as a "large scale" post war heavy rail subway project, once the Purple Line extension is complete. The BART system is mostly above ground except for SF and parts of places like Oakland, and is often plagued with problems because it is old. In a way, L.A. has a better system because it is so much newer, although shorter.

Agreed.

BART is a hybrid of the LIRR and the systems in DC and Atlanta. Most of the stations are suburban, headways are 15 minutes, and the train sets longer. LA’s system is 100% subway and the stations (current and future) are located at strategic intersections, mostly following the grid. /shade

I think once the D (Purple) Line reaches the VA and the Arts District, you’ll see a greater push from the public for more heavy rail. I expect renewed talks over extending to Wilshire/4th, and the placement of the AD station should put back on the table conversation about a Whittier Blvd. extension.

Then there’s the Sepulveda and Vermont corridors. If Metro opts for conventional HRT technology (same as what we have now) and chooses HRT over LRT for Vermont, then that’s an approximately 73-mile core HRT system. At that point, expansion projects can interline with existing infrastructure — mitigating their exorbitant price tags because they would probably be cost-effective enough to qualify for 50% funding from the FTA.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I think the heavy rail lines in L.A. qualify as a "large scale" post war heavy rail subway project, once the Purple Line extension is complete. The BART system is mostly above ground except for SF and parts of places like Oakland, and is often plagued with problems because it is old. In a way, L.A. has a better system because it is so much newer, although shorter.

BART's great strength is that they built a 4-track subway under Market and connected DTSF with DT Oakland in a no-bs manner. BART's weakness is its outer areas, most of which followed existing rail corridors and so failed to serve traditional neighborhood business districts.

LA's heavy rail lines are the opposite - DTLA was very weak relative to the size of the region and relative to DTSF when the subway was built in the 1990s. But the lines themselves travel through medium-high density along their entire lengths, with every station in a reasonably dense area. After the regional connector and Wilshire lines open, it will be much easier to live car-free in DTLA than ever before.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

BART's great strength is that they built a 4-track subway under Market and connected DTSF with DT Oakland in a no-bs manner. BART's weakness is its outer areas, most of which followed existing rail corridors and so failed to serve traditional neighborhood business districts.

LA's heavy rail lines are the opposite - DTLA was very weak relative to the size of the region and relative to DTSF when the subway was built in the 1990s. But the lines themselves travel through medium-high density along their entire lengths, with every station in a reasonably dense area. After the regional connector and Wilshire lines open, it will be much easier to live car-free in DTLA than ever before.

I think that BART only has two tracks under Market. The system map displays the services, not the tracks.

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/BART_...nsit#Track_Map

[Nouvellecosse]

BART only has two tracks, but there's also two tracks for MUNI.

[Busy Bee]

I think jmeck was thinking that Market St has 4 tracks total underground, which is correct, but just 2 each for BART and Municipal Railway. BART runs four services on just 2 tracks which is only possible because of the more commuter rail style headways of the branches. By comparison the New York City subway runs 2 services max per track (W & Z don't count as they are just rush hour derivatives).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I think jmeck was thinking that Market St has 4 tracks total underground, which is correct, but just 2 each for BART and Municipal Railway.

Correct - for whatever reason, people are swift to criticize the shortcomings of BART (the park & ride suburban strategy + the four interlined routes + minimal service in SF outside downtown) without noting the reconstruction and incorporation of MUNI in the 4-track subway. No equivalent duel-agency project exists in the United States (except, perhaps, the 63rd St. Tunnel in NYC) and I'm not sure that a perfect comparison exists anywhere else in the world.

Since the majority of any subway project's cost is the stations, it stands to reason that four-track lines ought to be more common, but I'm not sure that TBM's can dig in a stack (I'm at least not aware of any examples of it). I'd be curious to know if a four-track option was ever considered for Crossrail in London.

What's hilarious is that all of Crossrail's trouble was in the construction of the stations and software. Apparently the digging of the tunnels by the TBM's went very smoothly. But Elon Musk is out there pretending that he invented the TBM and that he will revolutionize underground transport with a machine that has already been perfected by 20+ other companies. If he wants to innovate, he needs to be thinking about improving station construction, but he is not interested in innovating, only attracting attention to his "innovations".

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Correct - for whatever reason, people are swift to criticize the shortcomings of BART (the park & ride suburban strategy + the four interlined routes + minimal service in SF outside downtown) without noting the reconstruction and incorporation of MUNI in the 4-track subway. No equivalent duel-agency project exists in the United States (except, perhaps, the 63rd St. Tunnel in NYC) and I'm not sure that a perfect comparison exists anywhere else in the world.

Maybe not stacked down a central corridor like that. At least off the top of my head.

Since the majority of any subway project's cost is the stations, it stands to reason that four-track lines ought to be more common, but I'm not sure that TBM's can dig in a stack (I'm at least not aware of any examples of it).

Geology matters a lot. In the case of East Side Access, the Manhattan rock is ideal for tunnel construction as it's completely self supporting. If it wasn't for waterproofing you could probably leave them unlined. The four bores come pretty close to one another and there's really no risk at all it would ever undermine each tunnel or the overburden, in many other places this definitely wouldn't be the case. The ESA platforms were created as you probably know by mining out the entire space the four tunnels lead to and out of of and the platforms and vertical circulation created basically like building a concrete building inside the cavern. It was expensive for a reason.

I'd be curious to know if a four-track option was ever considered for Crossrail in London.

I doubt it. The tunnels and stations barely fit around existing infrastructure as it is, I can't imagine if the had twice the footprint. Plus, I don't really think it would be needed. London doesn't really do express services and the platform screen doors at core stations allows high speed "fly-by's" if required.

Apparently the digging of the tunnels by the TBM's went very smoothly.

That's almost always the case anywhere. The tunnel boring is usually the simplest part, and usually goes surprisingly quickly. It's access shafts, the cavern mining, the ground water mitigation, the immense amount of vertical access and ventilation and all other aspects of station build-out that drives up the bill.

But Elon Musk is out there pretending that he invented the TBM and that he will revolutionize underground transport with a machine that has already been perfected by 20+ other companies. If he wants to innovate, he needs to be thinking about improving station construction, but he is not interested in innovating, only attracting attention to his "innovations".

He's not going to innovate anything that can't be sold on the Wall Street. He's made impressive contributions, but he is a salesman. If he could come up with a magic way of transit agencies saving 50%+ on underground construction costs, I'd be an unapologetic cheerleader.

[Nouvellecosse]

4 tracks are extremely rare in postwar projects. I think the main reason NYC is one of the few places to make wide use of additional tracks is that it combines fairly tight station spacing with a extreme density and a huge geographical area making both local and express necessary. Most other very large cities either have a super high frequency and capacity suburban rail system to provide the express service (Paris), have very wide station spacing (Moscow, Shanghai) or some balance between the two (London).

There are place where the RER and Paris metro share the same corridor for stretches like how RER A and Line 1 share a corridor for about 4.5km between the Arc du Triomphe and La Defense business district which is longer than the shared Market st. stretch. The difference being that they aren't part of the same tunnel and that the RER as an express service doesn't stop at all the same stations line 1 does.

In most cases, people seem to find it better to spend the extra to have a second route serving a different corridor even if combining four tracks into a single project is cheaper than doing them separately. It seems like SF is an exception due to its unusual geography and layout which places enough demand for that along one specific corridor.