LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[NSMP]

Cost impact, yes. Ridership, I don't see it.

A bit peculiar that WP1 and WP2 don't address Blue Line speeds through the junction and leave it interacting with street traffic.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

A bit peculiar that WP1 and WP2 don't address Blue Line speeds through the junction and leave it interacting with street traffic.

Well that is peculiar that none of them addresses the issue, even with WP3 in one direction it still has to deal with the surface crossings as well as the others for the higher price tag.

I think the logic the designers have with the two approaches is that by elevating or burying the problem conflict at the junction and separating both lines at Washington/Flower impacts to the surface crossings are reduced from 2 busy lines operating on the surface you only have one of them doing it, thus reducing that by 50%.

For the Blue Line because of how tight everything is in that area space wise the best that can be done is 10-15 mph. You could go with a wider curve for a faster speed but something else has to be sacrificed in order to obtain the higher speed.

Assuming that in order to transition underground or aerial with the best performance grade for the speed, the steeper the incline the slower the speed. Metro would have to take out the current Grand station in order to have room to do it...which leads into the next item.

Originally Posted by NSMP

Cost impact, yes. Ridership, I don't see it.

There lies the next issue, the street widths between Grand and Olive, Olive and Hill and Hill and Broadway just barely clears the length of a 3 car train, if you want ADA compliance then the ramp will have to jut out into the street.

Because of the loss of the Grand Avenue Station there will be a ridership and time impact for passengers who take the Blue Line to reach Trade Tech or who have to transfer to buses at Trade Tech. If WP3 moves through you will have to take a longer trip, because you have to go up to Pico to double back on Expo. Yes you go through the junction faster but it will take longer to get there than before and if you are transferring to local buses there that adds to the trip times, thus impacting ridership.

[NSMP]

On closer examination, this is quite a messy document.

WP1 = W1 ($90m) + P1 ($240m) = $330m. Ok, so far so good
WP2 = W4 ($680m) + P3 ($290m) = $970m... but wait, why's it listed as $680m?
WP3 = W7 ($460m) + P3 ($290m) = $750m.. listed as $840m. What is going on here?

So WP3 is not, or should not be, the most expensive option? Am I missing something?

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

On closer examination, this is quite a messy document.

WP1 = W1 ($90m) + P1 ($240m) = $330m. Ok, so far so good
WP2 = W4 ($680m) + P3 ($290m) = $970m... but wait, why's it listed as $680m?
WP3 = W7 ($460m) + P3 ($290m) = $750m.. listed as $840m. What is going on here?

So WP3 is not, or should not be, the most expensive option? Am I missing something?

Notice the cost of doing Expo underground all the way is $680M but it already assumes a station. Plus if you consider that as pieces you have to construct the whole piece in one direction underground that it would continue I would assume that it is really $390M for Expo Line separation tunnel at Washington with the $290 for the stacked At grade/underground platforms sounds right.

With WP3 the sub parts are correct but if one direction is all tunnel then the cost of the should be included which (I guess they assume) is $90M, if there was a cost assumptions summary that would be better.

So I agree this is a messy document because from my experience with respect to W4 how can doing a small section all underground cost more than doing both elevate AND underground as there are more construction impacts and a longer time to construct the complex 3D geometry.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Well that is peculiar that all of them really doesn't address them, even with WP3 in one direction it still has to deal with the surface crossings as well as the others for the higher price tag.

I think the logic the designers have with the two approaches is that by elevating or burying the problem conflict at the junction and separating both lines at Washington/Flower impacts to the surface crossings are reduced from 2 busy lines operating on the surface you only have one of them doing it, thus reducing that by 50%.

For the Blue Line because of how tight everything is in that area space wise the best that can be done is 10-15 mph. You could go with a wider curve for a faster speed but something else has to be sacrificed in order to obtain the higher speed.

Assuming that in order to transition underground or aerial with the best performance grade for the speed, the steeper the incline the slower the speed. Metro would have to take out the current Grand station in order to have room to do it...which leads into the next item.



There lies the next issue, the street widths between Grand and Olive, Olive and Hill and Hill and Broadway just barely clears the length of a 3 car train, if you want ADA compliance then the ramp will have to jut out into the street.

Because of the loss of the Grand Avenue Station there will be a ridership and time impact for passengers who take the Blue Line to reach Trade Tech or who have to transfer to buses at Trade Tech. If WP3 moves through you will have to take a longer trip, because you have to go up to Pico to double back on Expo. Yes you go through the junction faster but it will take longer to get there than before and if you are transferring to local buses there that adds to the trip times, thus impacting ridership.

Idk, these alternatives seem excessively complicated in order to avoid the simplest solution... an extension of the subway with 2 new underground stations, consolidating the 23rd and Grand stops to one station north of Washington. I frankly don't understand why you wouldn't do this. They've already costed out the subway extension in WP2, all that you need to add is one (single-level) station box and the flat underground junction.



Avoiding the flat junction, while it shows that they've maybe learned something from the regional connector, achieves absolutely nothing. There's a flat junction on the other end of the RC in Little Tokyo. We're not getting any extra capacity here...

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Avoiding the flat junction, while it shows that they've maybe learned something from the regional connector, achieves absolutely nothing. There's a flat junction on the other end of the RC in Little Tokyo. We're not getting any extra capacity here...

Actually to my mind it shows and proves what I said earlier in February/March that the junction was never the problem because the Regional Connector has a flat junction as you indicated (which was going to be my next post) at Little Tokyo and the reasons for moving forward with that approach is that it was simple to operate because a station was already there ahead of it and keep in control because it is separated. Much as it is now for Blue Line trains at Washington/Flower.

But I think there is a naivete that actually physically constructing this will be easy, when it really is not. That is why I'm anticipating where they will have to take properties to actually build the lines while maintaining maximum operation if it is in this piece meal approach. If they wait until after the West Santa Ana Corridor is built this could reduce the impacts of operation for a 3-6 month spell but it will still be a busy undertaking. Considering this corridor as a much longer alignment as I thought back in February USC to Downtown so that they can drop the TBM's down and save some mental calculations and simplify the questions of where to dig and where to portal.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Actually to my mind it shows that the junction was never the problem because the Regional Connector has a flat junction as you indicated (which was going to be my next post) at Little Tokyo and the reasons for moving forward with that approach is that it was simple to operate and keep in control because it is separated.

I completely agree. That was worded poorly on my part. What I was trying to get at was that the regional connector wasn't designed for more capacity from the start. I do agree that the flat junction is not an issue in and of itself. Treating it like it's the major constraint here (as opposed to vehicle traffic) seems misguided.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

I completely agree. That was worded poorly on my part. What I was trying to get at was that the regional connector wasn't designed for more capacity from the start.

Well RC still is about capacity improvement but the gain is through better operational throughput as to eliminate a bottleneck (7th Street) and move the system freely.

Originally Posted by NSMP

I do agree that the flat junction is not an issue in and of itself. Treating it like it's the major constraint here (as opposed to vehicle traffic) seems misguided.

For me that has been my issue with how this motion was written from the beginning, it is a false narrative. The junction works just fine, the constraints are the crossings near the junction at 18th Street/ I-10 On Ramp most of which they are trying to address if they include the signal preemption and safety gates at the 10 on-ramp

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

But I think there is a naivete that actually physically constructing this will be easy, when it really is not. That is why I'm anticipating where they will have to take properties to actually build the lines while maintaining maximum operation if it is in this piece meal approach. If they wait until after the West Santa Ana Corridor is build this could reduce the impacts of operation for a 3-6 month spell but it will still be a busy undertaking. Considering this corridor as a much longer alignment as I thought back in February USC to Downtown so that they can drop the TBM's down and save some mental calculations and simplify the questions of where to dig and where to portal.

No, I don't really think that it will be easy. That's not what I meant by simplest solution. It will be, as you say, a tremendous undertaking. Curious too that they haven't looked into the east end of the Expo ROW.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Curious too that they haven't looked into the east end of the Expo ROW.

Well because if the Mayor of Long Beach was actually looking to solve the problem it would have been included for consideration, it wasn't because he's up for re-election next year and needs to look busy.

[Quixote]

Why isn't W6+P2 on the table? All of the combined alternatives are junk, honestly. This is a critical segment of the entire rail system, so implementing a conservative band-aid solution just won't fly. But, this shouldn't come as a surprise... it's Metro.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Idk, these alternatives seem excessively complicated in order to avoid the simplest solution... an extension of the subway with 2 new underground stations, consolidating the 23rd and Grand stops to one station north of Washington. I frankly don't understand why you wouldn't do this. They've already costed out the subway extension in WP2, all that you need to add is one (single-level) station box and the flat underground junction.



Avoiding the flat junction, while it shows that they've maybe learned something from the regional connector, achieves absolutely nothing. There's a flat junction on the other end of the RC in Little Tokyo. We're not getting any extra capacity here...

I agree with this, except I think there should be stations at Olympic and Venice, not Pico and 18th.

[Quixote]

This project should entail subway configurations underneath Flower (all the way to the Expo ROW) and Washington, with the following stations:

Pico/Flower
Washington/Flower
Jefferson/Flower
Washington/San Pedro

Olympic/Flower also deserves a station (subway stations in CBDs are usually placed 0.2-0.3 miles apart), but it's not an absolute necessity right now.

The total cost would be around $2 billion, which is certainly expensive for a mere upgrade (e.g. not a new service), but Metro is willing to spend $4.3 billion on the WSAB line. This project is more about the logistical value (as opposed to ridership gains); what happens along these portions of the Blue/Expo Lines has a ripple effect.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Why isn't W6+P2 on the table? All of the combined alternatives are junk, honestly. This is a critical segment of the entire rail system, so implementing a conservative band-aid solution just won't fly. But, this shouldn't come as a surprise... it's Metro.

In short because the motion never included such an idea to be addressed.

It is a critical segment that doesn't have dedicated funding to build yet considering the Measure M just in that last 15 days was able to collect revenues with the majority of current cash flow is going towards accelerating first decade projects which means there is not much wiggle room to include more without pissing matches on the board which are counter productive.

Originally Posted by Quixote

This project should entail subway configurations underneath Flower (all the way to the Expo ROW) and Washington, with the following stations:

Pico/Flower
Washington/Flower
Jefferson/Flower
Washington/San Pedro

Olympic/Flower also deserves a station (subway stations in CBDs are usually placed 0.2-0.3 miles apart), but it's not an absolute necessity right now.

The total cost would be around $2 billion, which is certainly expensive for a mere upgrade (e.g. not a new service), but Metro is willing to spend $4.3 billion on the WSAB line. This project is more about the logistical value (as opposed to ridership gains); what happens along these portions of the Blue/Expo Lines has a ripple effect.

I'd add an extra $1B dollars to that cost(for a grand total of $3.0B minimum) for a lot of the reconfiguration that will be needed.

Personally as I indicated earlier they needed to study this more thoroughly as a broader corridor/system issue rather than piece meal as the motion just scratches the surface on for just this very reason. Maybe because of these findings the Board can go back and say given this initial information what are the steps needed to do a more thorough analysis? How much would that cost to make that happen, where is that funding going to come from?

With WSAB that project is as essential to the network as trying to upgrade the Flower Street corridor because to build said corridor for the undergrounding of the Blue Line as you are suggesting those trains will need another entry into Downtown LA and the WSAB northern alignment is it and relieves capacity off of the Blue Line...the very things you need to suggest and build the upgrades.

Back of the envelope calculations are good to get it started but this needs to be a more detailed study but the original motion never asked for that.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

WP3 it is

Looks like this is the only solution that addresses all 4 priorities but of course it is also the most spendy option.

But after $840 million, we will still have the north bound station at surface and only the south bound station underground?

I understand the split aerial and underground solution for each direction... so Metro can grade separate the junction. How much more would it cost to put the north bound Pico station underground too? Leaving the north bound tracks at grade in mixed traffic between I-10 freeway and Pico station still means the train has to stop for vehicle traffic.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Idk, these alternatives seem excessively complicated in order to avoid the simplest solution... an extension of the subway with 2 new underground stations, consolidating the 23rd and Grand stops to one station north of Washington. I frankly don't understand why you wouldn't do this. They've already costed out the subway extension in WP2, all that you need to add is one (single-level) station box and the flat underground junction.



Avoiding the flat junction, while it shows that they've maybe learned something from the regional connector, achieves absolutely nothing. There's a flat junction on the other end of the RC in Little Tokyo. We're not getting any extra capacity here...

NSMP - a couple questions

When you say "Avoiding the flat junction, while it shows that they've maybe learned something from the regional connector", do you mean Metro potentially learned something about a flat junction in its study of the Regional Connector that we don't know?

I get that their will be a flat junction on the other side of the RC, and that in theory having another doesn't reduce capacity, but in practice, won't removing one improve operations?

Do you communicate your feedback on these things to the Metro Board and the organization itself beyond the op-eds you write? You definitely have a lot of insightful things to say, I hope you make sure your voice is heard.

[NSMP]

By my original reply, I meant that Metro was maybe trying to future proof the design of this segment compared to the regional connector, which will probably operate at capacity within 10 years of opening and be extremely difficult to fix if so. Separating the Blue and Expo lines (or as they have it in these diagrams, the north and south directions) fully would be a way of achieving additional capacity, because it could allow each service to run more frequently. This doesn't really apply to the current plan, so it was a confusing comment. I was mostly trying to say that if the lines were stacked, it would be easier to add capacity later. Other aspects of the alternatives (4 tracking pico station e.g.), suggested to me a deliberate focus on not under building again)

But, none of that matters, because building for more capacity on the south end of the regional connector doesn't allow you to run more trains if the rest of the connector remains unchanged. The most obvious thing to do is simply to extend the tunneled portion of the regional connector and put the junction below grade where trains won't interact with cars.

Thanks for the compliment, btw. I do public comment on Metro projects here and there, and probably will do so more going forward.

[bzcat]

I realize my previous post was a little confusing to read because I didn't get to the point quickly.

It is bordering scandalous that all 3 potential solutions still involves leaving at least two directions of Expo or Blue line in mixed traffic. It boggles the mind that Metro did this study and didn't address the fundamental cause for the slowness (forcing trains to stop for cars)

WP1 leaves Expo and Blue line at grade for $330m with only a token grade separation at the Washington junction for north bound Expo - 1 (partial segment) out of 4 directions of travel not impacted by vehicle traffic

WP2 leaves Blue line at grade with no change but undergrounds Expo for the entire length for $680m - 2 out of 4 directions of travel not impacted by vehicle traffic

WP3 leaves Expo and Blue line north bound at grade between I-10 and Pico station and undergrounds the south bound for $840m - 2 out of 4 directions of travel not impacted by vehicle traffic

The junction part of the analysis seems to have hijacked the issue and the simple solution of grade separation became an after thought.

[Illithid Dude]

I wonder if the weird complexity of these proposals are so that Metro can maintain continuous service during construction?

[SoCalKid]

How do we get the point across to Metro? How can citizens push them towards choosing W6 +P2 (full underground with a flat junction)?