HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5881  
Old Posted May 23, 2022, 11:24 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
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...

Last edited by hughfb3; May 24, 2022 at 5:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5882  
Old Posted May 24, 2022, 12:05 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,393
Quote:
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
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5883  
Old Posted May 24, 2022, 2:41 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post

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.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; May 24, 2022 at 3:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5884  
Old Posted May 25, 2022, 2:53 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5885  
Old Posted May 25, 2022, 2:54 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,476
A very important project for sure. Glad to see it moving forward albeit incrementally
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5886  
Old Posted May 25, 2022, 5:17 PM
mattropolis's Avatar
mattropolis mattropolis is offline
matt in the city
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: BC
Posts: 310
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5887  
Old Posted May 25, 2022, 5:54 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattropolis View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5888  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:33 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
From the EIR, the 2 reasons are to accommodate HSR’s elevated platforms and Caltrans clearance standards.
That makes sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5889  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:43 PM
mattropolis's Avatar
mattropolis mattropolis is offline
matt in the city
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: BC
Posts: 310
Thanks numble. I took a look at Google Street View, and I can see that now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:07 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.