HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5001  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 11:05 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 518
There are a bunch of inaccuracies in there. Cities are required by Metro to cover 3% of project cost, not 5%. The trigger for accelerating schedule is an additional 10% (13% total) not 30%. And despite what WeHo may have stated, they have not committed those extra funds to the project as of yet. So what have they done for the project? Nothing more than a considerable deal of whining and lobbying. The former is commonplace and the latter is something most cities can’t afford, and not a reason to bend to a tiny city’s whims.

I don’t want a street level rail line built at the corner of their city; I want grade separated rail. As it so happens the La Brea route has the least mileage through the city, less than .4 miles, such that it would probably be possible to run that segment below grade if necessary without blowing up the budget for the project. Same can’t be said for SV or LC.

WeHo has really gotten carried away. Regardless, the real obstacle to this project being built correctly is, has been, and will remain the city of Los Angeles.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5002  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2018, 12:15 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
There are a bunch of inaccuracies in there. Cities are required by Metro to cover 3% of project cost, not 5%. The trigger for accelerating schedule is an additional 10% (13% total) not 30%. And despite what WeHo may have stated, they have not committed those extra funds to the project as of yet. So what have they done for the project? Nothing more than a considerable deal of whining and lobbying. The former is commonplace and the latter is something most cities can’t afford, and not a reason to bend to a tiny city’s whims.

I don’t want a street level rail line built at the corner of their city; I want grade separated rail. As it so happens the La Brea route has the least mileage through the city, less than .4 miles, such that it would probably be possible to run that segment below grade if necessary without blowing up the budget for the project. Same can’t be said for SV or LC.

WeHo has really gotten carried away. Regardless, the real obstacle to this project being built correctly is, has been, and will remain the city of Los Angeles.
Really? I'll have looked up the funding triggers again since I remember reading something to that effect. But since your rather excellent blog would be one of those sources anyway, I'll defer to you unless I find something different.

Regardless of the exact amount WeHo puts in though, I fear this is a coming battle. WeHo has made their preferences very well known, and a very big stink will be made if the new line only runs through a corner of their town, grade separated or not.

Let's be clear in that I agree with you about the viability of SV and LC, but I get the sneaking suspicion this process isn't going fast or simple. Not to mention Metro has shown an unfortunate willingness to blow project budgets in the face of parochial local concerns already, just look at how the WSAB is spending an extra billion sinking the line underground just to keep little tokyo from complaining about the construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5003  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2018, 11:15 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
I’ve said this before but another entry into downtown is definitely *not* a prerequisite for extending the Red Line on Vermont.
When you factor in future ridership and population density with route flexibility, the very thing in favor of the Purple Line and set out in key policy objectives in the city and county, this will be needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
As it so happens the La Brea route has the least mileage through the city, less than .4 miles, such that it would probably be possible to run that segment below grade if necessary without blowing up the budget for the project. Same can’t be said for SV or LC.

WeHo has really gotten carried away. Regardless, the real obstacle to this project being built correctly is, has been, and will remain the city of Los Angeles.
Agreed which goes to a key assumption that some forum posters on this and other boards are neglecting is that this area is a hot bed of politically sensitive land use and transportation issues such as SB 827.

And if we assume the leaders in the City of LA (some of whom has eyes for higher offices) will accept an all elevated route down one of their streets without any opposition from neighboring residents nearby and ON La Brea -because Metro has not released this for Community meetings yet- while telling WeHo to shove it because that little 0.4 mile will be in their city (when and if they front some money for the project) will be a little daunting for WeHo to swallow politically.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5004  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2018, 2:26 AM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 518
I agree that another entry into downtown is necessary, the point where I disagree is I don’t think it will be necessary before the Vermont Line is constructed.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5005  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2018, 12:28 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Trump for Treason.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Posts: 4,161
Orange County streetcar

We took this trip to Garden Grove
It smelled like Lou-dog in the... streetcar

$220-million contract to build modern streetcar line in Orange County

By Ben Brazil
September 27, 2018
San Diego Union Tribune

“Orange County Transportation Authority board members recently awarded a $220.5-million contract to a construction firm to build the first modern streetcar in Orange County.

Corona-based Walsh Construction is expected to begin work later this year.

“This is an important milestone that puts us one step closer to breaking ground on the O.C. Streetcar,” said county Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, who chairs the OCTA...”

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...927-story.html
__________________
No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5006  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2018, 8:42 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 106
Here is the Purple Line Section 3 Construction Approach Plan, prepared in March 2018:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0pfz2nslxy...0Plan.pdf?dl=0

Unlike the earlier sections, the plan is for tunneling to start early, before station construction. The stations will be built by breaking through the already-completed tunnels.

Such a plan is intended to allow acceleration of the schedule for opening by the Olympics. I wonder if this approach will be adopted for future tunneling projects.
http://media.metro.net/projects_stud..._2018-0601.pdf
Quote:
Metro proposes advancing the construction schedule of Section 3 in order to have the system in operation by the 2028 Olympic Games that will be held in Los Angeles. To accomplish this goal, Metro must advance contracts concurrently and, therefore, anticipates that the tunnel and station contracts would overlap. In comparison, the Final EIS/EIR did not assume that these contracts would overlap.
Note the estimated Notice to Proceed date of June 2018 has been delayed and still has not occurred due to the delay in the federal funding and the FTA requirements. They do not allow Metro to issue the Notice to Proceed until the FTA completes an environmental review of the project. The Notice to Proceed is estimated to be before December 3, 2018, according to this board box report: http://boardarchives.metro.net/Board...ONP_Update.pdf

Some interesting excerpts from the plan:
Quote:
Ahead of tunneling, the Section 3 Tunneling Contractor is required to install end wall piles to the west and east end of the (future) stations. Minor utility relocations are anticipated to need to be undertaken to install the piles. At VA Hospital Station, a grout block must also be installed at the east pile wall. These activities should be performed prior to tunneling through those areas.
Quote:
The Section 3 tunnels will be driven from an access shaft on the Army Reserve eastward towards Century City. This is consistent with the FEIS/EIR. The Section 3 tunnels will be driven approximately 10ft into an improved ground zone (grout block) installed by the Section 2 Contractor outside of the Section 2 tail track interface chamber west of the Century City / Constellation Station.   

The Section 3 Tunnel Contractor will dismantle the tunnel boring machines (TBM’s) within the tunnels and remove the TBM components back through the tunnel to the Army Reserve. TBM’s arrive at the Constellation Station location before the Section 2 Contractor will have excavated the station box so “holing through” into the Constellation Station at that time will not be possible.  When the Section 2 Contractor has excavated the Century City / Constellation Station box, the Section 3 stations contractor will then be able to connect the Section 3 tunnels to the Section 2 tail track tunnel.
Quote:
Excavation of the stations is subject to the Contractor’s means and methods, however excavation may need to be undertaken in two phases if the Station Contractor expedites station excavation prior to handover of the tunnels from the Tunnel Contractor. If this were the case, then the first phase would to be excavate down to 20ft over the tunnel prior completion of tunneling. The second phase will continue excavation to final grade after the handover of the tunnels and will require the breaking out of the tunnel lining segments when excavation reaches tunnel depth.
Quote:
Whereas Sections 1 & 2 included the tunnel construction with the station and track construction contract, for Section 3 tunnel construction will be a separate contract to enable advancement of the tunnel work ahead of the procurement of the station contract.   

Key Dates:
 Tunnel Contract NTP:  June 2018
 Temporary power for TBM operations required: July 2019
 Commence TBM tunneling:  May 2020
 Complete TBM tunneling:  August 2021
 Handoff tunnels to Stations and Systems Contractor:  July 2022

Following delivery of the TBM’s to the Army Reserve site, the TBM’s will be assembled and commissioned. The TBM’s are anticipated to be assembled sequentially, six weeks apart, to allow TBM 1 drive to commence as soon as possible. The tunneling operation will be carried out in advanced of the station construction and as such there is no skidding through station boxes and/or shafts for the tunneling contractor to consider. Use of a slightly larger bore for both tunnels is planned to accommodate the ends of the crossover trackwork within the tunnels.  The larger bore tunnels in combination with a localized steel liner means there will be no need to oversize the tunnel through mining operations in the fault zone.
Quote:
Provision has been made in the design for knock out panels in the access shaft for a future tie in to an extension of the Purple Line west. The timeline for any potential construction activity associated with this is beyond the construction schedule of Section 3 and as such a construction interface is not envisaged.
Quote:
By adopting a separate contract for the tunneling work from the stations and systems work a low bid design‐build procurement method can be utilized for the tunneling, cutting down on the evaluation duration. This will enable tunneling to start sooner than if a single design build contract was let.

With splitting the tunneling work from the station and systems work the coordination effort must be increased on the client side rather than passing that interface to a single design build contractor, however as the overall Westside Program will have delivered two prior sections, these interfaces are known and understood. 
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 2:12 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.