HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6161  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2023, 1:26 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Related to this discussion, this article might be of interest.

Want More Trains and Subways? Build Smaller Stations
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...aller-stations
Don’t understand why Metro isn’t exploring a single-bore option with tracks on two levels for A6. The smaller station boxes can then be excavated next to the tunnel with only one set of escalators/stairs going down to the lower level. IOW, one track is on the mezzanine (this is the case with 7th Street / Metro Center.

What would be ideal though is a tunnel with a diameter wide enough to accommodate two tracks on two levels, the lower level solely dedicated to express trains.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6162  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2023, 1:41 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: 9,450
In theory a tbm could be built to bore a tunnel to those dimensions - maybe like 75-80'. I would imagine the geology cooperating with a huge single bore like that would be the bigger question mark.
__________________
Beatboxing under the bath water


Is there anything lower than a Rupert Murdoch?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6163  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2023, 11:26 AM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Here's Urbanize's take on the good news:

L.A. area passenger rail projects nab more than $1B in state funding

Light rail in the Valley, a people mover in Inglewood, and more

Steven Sharp
Urbanize Los Angeles
February 1, 2023

A report issued yesterday by the California State Transportation Agency announces more than $1 billion in new funding for planned and under-construction passenger rail projects in Southern California - including a new people mover system in the City of Inglewood and upgrades to Metrolink's regional rail system.

“The projects funded represent critical transportation and will provide alternatives to driving with access to a modernized, public transit system,” said Governor Gavin Newsom in a news release. “California is unwavering in our commitment to our world-leading climate agenda, including record levels of investments in public transportation projects to electrify fleets, expand and improve service, and spark ridership growth.”

The new round of funding, which supplements projects that have already received money from California's Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, will go toward L.A. area projects including:

Inglewood Transit Connector ($407 million)


Rendering of a people mover station in Downtown Inglewood

The City of Inglewood will receive $407 million for a more than $1.5-billion people mover system which is intended to connect the recently-opened K Line with destinations such as SoFi Stadium and the future home of the Los Angeles Clippers. That funding, combined with existing local funding streams, is expected to allow Inglewood to compete for a Federal New Starts grant, with the aim of opening the people mover system prior to the Olympics in 2028. That would require a full funding agreement by the end of 2023.


East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor ($600 million)


Route of East San Fernando Valley light rail line

Metro will receive $600 million for the construction of a long-planned light rail line down Van Nuys Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, supplementing local tax return that is already allocated to the project, as well as more than $900 million in Federal funds. Utility work began late last year for the East San Fernando Valley Line, which is expected to cost upwards of $2 billion and feature 11 stops on a 6.7-mile route between the G Line busway and Pacoima.
I can’t help but find some of these plans depressing.

Hollywood Park and Inglewood seems like the perfect place for significant infrastructure investment. This “Inglewood People Mover” is the worst of all the available options.

The two best options? Are both TRUE mass transit.

When the Sepulveda Line is finished - it shouldn’t end at LAX. It should go end at an underground superstation. Roughly half way between Intuit Dome and SoFi Stadium. The Hollywood park development combined with the casino, the forum,
the stadium, the music venue and the arena. Would get a lot of use.

OR you could also include 2 miles of LRT. Brand it as a stand alone line or as a branch of a line. The route being…

(1) Fairview Heights (already built)
(2) Manchester/Prairie
(3) Hollywood Park (to be built at one of two options)
a. 99th & Prairie
b. Stadium Drive near District Drive
(4) Crenshaw (already built)


HRT or LRT aside, a third option would be connecting the Airport People mover to the Inglewood people mover. Making it as one mode.

____________________________________________________

And we all know the boondoggle the ESFV line is. I’m almost in denial. I keep expecting a last minute change. This thing should be at a MINIMUM grade separated. Stations should be spaced out as opposed to one each block almost. It really should be part of the Sepulveda project but we know that won’t happen. AT least it should be built with the idea of connecting it to the Orange line (after LRT conversion)


______

Just a waste of money all around - So much potential not realized with these projects
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6164  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2023, 11:52 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
The plaza level of the 2nd/Broadway station revealed.

Apparently, there's a plan to build a tower over this subway station. I hope it happens!






Source:

Urbanize Los Angeles
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6165  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2023, 6:42 PM
FromSD FromSD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post

____________________________________________________

And we all know the boondoggle the ESFV line is. I’m almost in denial. I keep expecting a last minute change. This thing should be at a MINIMUM grade separated. Stations should be spaced out as opposed to one each block almost. It really should be part of the Sepulveda project but we know that won’t happen. AT least it should be built with the idea of connecting it to the Orange line (after LRT conversion)


______

Just a waste of money all around - So much potential not realized with these projects
I agree completely. In the past I've been a defender of the LA MTA. In particular, I think they've handled the Purple Line extension fairly well. I've wondered about some of their more recent projects, though. I still don't understand how a station to connect the K line to the Airport people mover needs to cost almost a billion dollars. How could they possibly spend so much money on a station that's not even underground?

And the East San Fernando Valley line is an even bigger miss. All that money for what is essentially a 6-mile long streetcar. I guess MTA is billing it as a local-only line since it isn't directly connected to any other light rail line. Even if the Orange Line is converted to light rail one day, though, you would still need to transfer twice to reach DTLA. And the ESFV line won't be any faster than a bus with closely-spaced stations and the need to stop for lights at all the east-west SFV boulevards. If you aren't going to do grade separation, bus rapid transit makes more sense for Van Nuys Blvd. This light rail line really doesn't provide any added speed and convenience for the massively higher cost.

Is the idea that it's the East San Fernando Valley's turn to get rail transit so we will give them this? What about the other parts of the county that have been left out of the rail network so far? How about the Gateway Cities southeast of DTLA? That area is densely populated, low income, transit dependent and part of the LA core. Serving that area should take priority over a Van Nuys Blvd. street car.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6166  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 9:29 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromSD View Post
And the East San Fernando Valley line is an even bigger miss. All that money for what is essentially a 6-mile long streetcar. I guess MTA is billing it as a local-only line since it isn't directly connected to any other light rail line. Even if the Orange Line is converted to light rail one day, though, you would still need to transfer twice to reach DTLA.
Why is reaching downtown LA in fewer than two transfers a metric for evaluating new Valley transit projects like the ESFV streetcar or upgrading the Orange Line to rail? Do most public transit users in the coverage area of the current Orange Line or proposed ESFV streetcar head in and out of downtown daily?

Quote:
If you aren't going to do grade separation, bus rapid transit makes more sense for Van Nuys Blvd. This light rail line really doesn't provide any added speed and convenience for the massively higher cost.
I agree with you there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6167  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 5:19 PM
FromSD FromSD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Why is reaching downtown LA in fewer than two transfers a metric for evaluating new Valley transit projects like the ESFV streetcar or upgrading the Orange Line to rail?
It isn't a primary consideration if your only goal is to provide service along a local, isolated service area. But considering how many gaps there are in the MTA rail network, why put a project like this on the front burner? Build out the network first, and then you can start building lines like this that primarily service local areas. As for the Orange Line, it definitely should be converted to light rail, and while they do that they should eliminate as many grade crossings as funding allows. If it were my choice, I would put the Orange Line conversion ahead of the ESFV line. Once the Orange Line gets converted, then build the ESFV line and you have the potential to provide a one seat ride from Pacoima to the Red Line station in North Hollywood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6168  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2023, 6:35 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,443
I don't see the point in spending all the money necessary to switch the Orange Line from bus rapid transit to light rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6169  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 6:48 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,158
Dang it, I missed the open house for the ESFV thing.
__________________
No, I don't have a job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6170  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 6:49 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,158
Dang it.
__________________
No, I don't have a job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6171  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 6:50 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,158
Good luck to it, I guess.
__________________
No, I don't have a job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6172  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 6:55 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,158
Delete.
__________________
No, I don't have a job.

Last edited by SFBruin; Mar 3, 2023 at 7:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6173  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 6:57 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,158
Delete.
__________________
No, I don't have a job.

Last edited by SFBruin; Mar 3, 2023 at 7:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6174  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 7:22 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 7,294
^ Everything ok over there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6175  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 4:55 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 7,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post
And we all know the boondoggle the ESFV line is. I’m almost in denial. I keep expecting a last minute change. This thing should be at a MINIMUM grade separated. Stations should be spaced out as opposed to one each block almost. It really should be part of the Sepulveda project but we know that won’t happen. AT least it should be built with the idea of connecting it to the Orange line (after LRT conversion)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromSD View Post
And the East San Fernando Valley line is an even bigger miss. All that money for what is essentially a 6-mile long streetcar. I guess MTA is billing it as a local-only line since it isn't directly connected to any other light rail line. Even if the Orange Line is converted to light rail one day, though, you would still need to transfer twice to reach DTLA. And the ESFV line won't be any faster than a bus with closely-spaced stations and the need to stop for lights at all the east-west SFV boulevards. If you aren't going to do grade separation, bus rapid transit makes more sense for Van Nuys Blvd. This light rail line really doesn't provide any added speed and convenience for the massively higher cost.

Is the idea that it's the East San Fernando Valley's turn to get rail transit so we will give them this? What about the other parts of the county that have been left out of the rail network so far? How about the Gateway Cities southeast of DTLA? That area is densely populated, low income, transit dependent and part of the LA core. Serving that area should take priority over a Van Nuys Blvd. street car.
Is the ESFV projected to have high ridership? If so, then it may be worthwhile. However, when I look at a map of the Metro system, there's a few gaps that jump out to me that I wonder should take higher priority. And that's a lack of a north-south line in west and central LA. We've got a lot of east-west going on with the E Line to Santa Monica, and the D Line with the Purple Extension to Westwood/VA Hospital.

To me, the most obvious next steps that should receive the bulk of the resources and funding would be 1) Sepulveda Transit Corridor from Van Nuys to LAX and 2) K Line Northern Extension from Expo/Crenshaw to Hollywood/Highland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FromSD View Post
I still don't understand how a station to connect the K line to the Airport people mover needs to cost almost a billion dollars. How could they possibly spend so much money on a station that's not even underground?
Agreed about the LAX/Metro Transit Center station. Quite shocking considering the original estimate was $500 million. The only reason I can think of as to how a single, at-grade station can cost nearly a billion is that they're trying to make it look really nice with high quality materials. Maybe if they were future proofing the station for a future Sepulveda Line transfer although when I look at the renderings I don't see that obviously apparent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6176  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 7:57 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
In theory a tbm could be built to bore a tunnel to those dimensions - maybe like 75-80'. I would imagine the geology cooperating with a huge single bore like that would be the bigger question mark.
Right, in soft soils a huge single bore needs to be very deep, so access times from the street are very lengthy. There's a reason we see these more often for highways than for transit.

Long access time is ok for a regional transit line like LIRR in NYC where riders are on the train for awhile, but for an urban transit line with lots of short trips, a long trip down to the platform and then back up can increase the trip times significantly enough to drag down ridership.

In rock, the tunnel can be a bit shallower but there are still concerns about settlement/subsidence if you're too shallow. I keep coming back to the idea that the original way to do this stuff is the best - cut and cover the whole line, end to end, with short segments of shield tunneling where you need to go deep (under rivers, hills/ridges, etc).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6177  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2023, 10:44 PM
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: 9,450
Yeah but but but "community disruption" !!! What about the children ???
__________________
Beatboxing under the bath water


Is there anything lower than a Rupert Murdoch?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6178  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2023, 5:38 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Is the ESFV projected to have high ridership? If so, then it may be worthwhile.
According to L.A. City Council President and Metro Board Member Paul Krekorian, "The communities that surround the new East San Fernando Valley Light Rail corridor are highly transit-dependent." I take that as a yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6179  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2023, 5:11 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,218
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6180  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2023, 3:26 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
Fabulous news!!! The quicker we can get this done, the quicker the politics in CA shift to a fuller support to get the CASHR completed not only to LA, but the next phase to San Diego
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:22 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.