LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

I think it will need to be deeper than that so that it doesn't hit the Red Line tunnel which is 40-50 feet below and this tunnel will need to be below that and this is in close proximity with a 1-2% grade(any steeper grade you eliminate any speed advantages) so I think it will be about 200' for a commuter rail facility that is seldom used if Dodger Stadium stays there and only possible to build if Dodger Stadium no longer functions as a ballpark because you have to excavate the stadium in order to construct the wide and long station box for maybe 4 tracks and two platforms needed for the length of a 750' train.

By that point that is the only leverage in the financing the development as the current sketch the tunnel is literally underneath the bowl of the stadium and the stadium no longer exists.

Wait a second. I'm proposing having it elevated about 30-40 feet above street level, then have it punch into a hole in the side of the hill Dodger Stadium is on.
Seeing as the new viaduct would be lined with new developments, the route could be capped by a park accessed from the 4th or 5th levels of each of the new buildings, creating a space like the high line, and minimizing the intrusion of the new route on Chinatown.
Furthermore, you can clearly see how easily a station can fit in to Dodger Stadium, with potential for acres and acres of new development.

I created a map of my proposition, which you can view here for clarity:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1th...oc&usp=sharing

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Glendale and Burbank just got $200,000 to study a streetcar from Burbank Airport to Glendale Transportation Center via Glenoaks and Brand.



http://www.latimes.com/socal/glendal...221-story.html

Normally, I don't like streetcars, but I find it to be very appropriate for this corridor for four reasons:
1. It could easily have its own lane.
2. It allows the NoHo-Pasadena line to take a southerly route by the movie studios and zoo, which I support, while still having a rail connection from Glendale to Downtown Burbank.
3. It fits in nicely with the surrounding transit system.
4. It could be extended to the Vermont/Santa Monica red line station, further complimenting the surrounding bus and rail network.

I really hope this actually happens!

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Phase 2 will begin construction 2018
Phase 3 probably 2019

I found it! I was hunting for info on the time line for the Purple Line. I was in L.A. Tuesday, just for the day, and my main mission was to go the Hammer Museum/Westwood and LACMA. I took the Purple Line as far as I could, then bussed it out to Westwood and back.

I didn't realize this was all being done in phases, and the length of time it will take to complete this line. Very disheartening, in a way, and wondering why it would take so long. It's not like they're drilling through rock, right?

The La Cienega stop, wouldn't that bring you to LACMA? That red building with the chrome strips, that's a rail stop/station?

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by IMBY

I found it! I was hunting for info on the time line for the Purple Line. I was in L.A. Tuesday, just for the day, and my main mission was to go the Hammer Museum/Westwood and LACMA. I took the Purple Line as far as I could, then bussed it out to Westwood and back.

I didn't realize this was all being done in phases, and the length of time it will take to complete this line. Very disheartening, in a way, and wondering why it would take so long. It's not like they're drilling through rock, right?

The La Cienega stop, wouldn't that bring you to LACMA? That red building with the chrome strips, that's a rail stop/station?

The red building with the chrome strips is the Petersen Automotive Museum. The La Cienega stop would be next to it.


Remember that LA is geologically unstable. The La Brea Tar pits is right down the street. In 1985, a methane gas leak caused an explosion at a Ross which derailed (nyuk nyuk nyuk) LA's subway dreams for a long while.

http://jpg1.lapl.org/00095/00095602.jpg


http://jpg1.lapl.org/00095/00095601.jpg


It literally rerouted the Red Line. This is what was proposed in 1983.

http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPG..._alignment.JPG

Red line today.

http://litcrawl.org/la/files/2013/07...d-Line-Map.jpg

[NSMP]

Lacma and Petersen are at Fairfax

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Lacma and Petersen are at Fairfax

My mistake. This is the Wilshire/La Cienega station.

[mrsmartman]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

The red building with the chrome strips is the Petersen Automotive Museum. The La Cienega stop would be next to it.


Remember that LA is geologically unstable. The La Brea Tar pits is right down the street. In 1985, a methane gas leak caused an explosion at a Ross which derailed (nyuk nyuk nyuk) LA's subway dreams for a long while.

http://jpg1.lapl.org/00095/00095602.jpg


http://jpg1.lapl.org/00095/00095601.jpg


It literally rerouted the Red Line. This is what was proposed in 1983.

http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPG..._alignment.JPG

Red line today.

http://litcrawl.org/la/files/2013/07...d-Line-Map.jpg

The current alignment is more direct but the downtown section might get congested over time.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

It literally rerouted the Red Line. This is what was proposed in 1983.

http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPG..._alignment.JPG

Red line today.

http://litcrawl.org/la/files/2013/07...d-Line-Map.jpg

Personally, I wish this initial two line system had been built instead:

[202_Cyclist]

Exciting news about the possible Glendale - Burbank streetcar. What would the impact of all of the planned streetcar systems (DTLA, Riverside, Glendale, Santa Ana - Garden Grove-- 'We took this trip to Garden Grove. It smelled like Lou-dog inside the streetcar...') be on mobility and livability for Southern California. These systems are discussed independently of each other but each of these systems, combined with enhanced Metrolink service and (hopefully) high-speed rail, would really improve mobility in Southern California's various downtowns.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Wait a second. I'm proposing having it elevated about 30-40 feet above street level, then have it punch into a hole in the side of the hill Dodger Stadium is on.
Seeing as the new viaduct would be lined with new developments, the route could be capped by a park accessed from the 4th or 5th levels of each of the new buildings, creating a space like the high line, and minimizing the intrusion of the new route on Chinatown.
Furthermore, you can clearly see how easily a station can fit in to Dodger Stadium, with potential for acres and acres of new development.

I created a map of my proposition, which you can view here for clarity:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1th...oc&usp=sharing

This map in plan view adds more questions as I'm am imagining the slope and topographic section and or topographic layer of the current terrain will give me a better understanding as to how this will play out.

I believe where this viaduct will start is much higher than you anticipate as it approaches Union Station the slope of the guideway will have to match it and relate back to the space that you're trying to develop. In that section of Chinatown the slopes are pretty sharp between Hill, Broadway, Gold Line, the Cornfield Park and Spring Streets. In addition where you place the portal is important as you're dealing with another steep drop in elevation (about 100) in a short distance and you need to construct space for a retaining wall to hold the earth that is now pierced through with a heavy live load.

I may be wrong, but from my experience that is the case. And if this route straightening if for speed, having to slope down or up an incline will negate any speed advantage and we're better off with the current design despite the curves. I have a background in Architecture and Construction I am looking at what trade offs you have to incorporate for the benefit you want.

Also per the sketch it looks like we'll have to completely tear down Metro HQ in order to align the tracks as you have indicated. Yeah more development opportunities but driving the costs enormously for very little benefit.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

I believe where this viaduct will start is much higher than you anticipate as it approaches Union Station the slope of the guideway will have to match it and relate back to the space that you're trying to develop. In that section of Chinatown the slopes are pretty sharp between Hill, Broadway, Gold Line, the Cornfield Park and Spring Streets. In addition where you place the portal is important as you're dealing with another steep drop in elevation (about 100) in a short distance and you need to construct space for a retaining wall to hold the earth that is now pierced through with a heavy live load.

I may be wrong, but from my experience that is the case. And if this route straightening if for speed, having to slope down or up an incline will negate any speed advantage and we're better off with the current design despite the curves.

This wouldn't be as sloped as you think. The tracks would have to ascend a 1% grade from the LA River (280 feet above sea level) to platforms 30 feet above the ground at LAUS (330 feet above sea level above LAUS at 300 feet above sea level.) From there, trains would continue up a 1% grade over the course of half a mile so that they are 60 feet above LA State Historical Park (295 feet above sea level). Continuing on, trains would pass 10 feet above Broadway, and pass over the 110 on a high viaduct, entering the Dodger Stadium Hill about 210 feet below its peak, which is 590 feet above sea level). The first 10 feet into the hill could be carved out (about 5500 cubic yards of dirt), so that a retaining wall is less necessary. In short, the tracks would climb about 100 feet over the course of 1.5 miles, which isn't that much. They would just vary from being 60 feet to 10 feet above ground level, depending on the elevation of the ground below.

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Also per the sketch it looks like we'll have to completely tear down Metro HQ in order to align the tracks as you have indicated. Yeah more development opportunities but driving the costs enormously for very little benefit.

I calculate that assuming a 6:1 FAR, 35,705,694 square feet of new development could be built. Assuming prices of about $700 per square foot (standard in new construction downtown), about 5% of their value would have to go to Metro to generate 1 billion dollars, which seems to be a reasonable cost for Metro to pay for the viaduct-tunnel project.

[mrsmartman]

They could also relocate the station near the river. Great railroad stations like GCT always have a zone for trains to slow down and cross switches before reaching the platform. Trains always slow down to enter grand railroad terminal in great cities. With the new design, trains do not need to turn 180 degrees to enter the station.

[SoCalKid]

I took the Expo Line the other day and timed my ride. The train was exactly on schedule despite:

- 3 minutes waiting at stop lights between Western and Vermont
- Approximately 3 minutes worth of delay at the Expo/Blue line junction area (my best guess)

My takeaway was that grade separation through Downtown combined with full signal preemption from Western could bring total travel to down to around 40 minutes (6 minutes savings detailed above + ~1 minute from faster speeds after preemption and grade separation). 40 minutes end-to-end would be pretty attractive.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

I took the Expo Line the other day and timed my ride. The train was exactly on schedule despite:

- 3 minutes waiting at stop lights between Western and Vermont
- Approximately 3 minutes worth of delay at the Expo/Blue line junction area (my best guess)

My takeaway was that grade separation through Downtown combined with full signal preemption from Western could bring total travel to down to around 40 minutes (6 minutes savings detailed above + ~1 minute from faster speeds after preemption and grade separation). 40 minutes end-to-end would be pretty attractive.

I bet you could get it down to 35 with a tunnel from Expo Blvd all the way north to Downtown. Maybe 30 with a tunnel from Western to Downtown.

[Quixote]

^ Nah, probably 35 minutes with a tunnel from Downtown to Western. That's very good when considering the number of stops and the somewhat indirect route.

[NSMP]

It would have to average Red Line speeds to do the entire length in 30 minutes

[Quixote]

The Expo Line set a new ridership record last month, averaging 55,388 riders per weekday. That's up from only 30,785 average weekday riders in February 2016.

Keep in mind that Expo's 2030 ridership was initially projected to be around 64,000.

[Bikemike]

^It still sucks ass to ride Expo, whatever the ridership.

The problem with Metro is it assumes LA becomes a cohesive city by merely connecting its disparate hoods by rail. No, it becomes cohesive by making disparate hoods practical to visit with regularity. Expo connects destinations, sure, but it utterly fails at making the places it serves feel relevant to my life, despite my living a half mile from a station, because it's extremely slow and still lacks useful connectors. The problem with LA is it remains a city of (relatively) isolated bubbles which may as well be in different parts of our state. What good is calling it "city" if it lacks the synergy of one.

So far we remain far from having a transit system that brings LA together. Sprawly city suffering from no transit becomes sprawly city suffering from sprawly, barely usable, transit. Am I supposed to rejoice for merely being able to say yes, we have transit?

Either you build it or you don't. You don't get points for getting "there" half-assed. This has been LA's perennial problem. Half-assed culture with half-assed planning and transit. I was excited about Expo before it opened, but now I realize it was just another case of extremely low expectations haha.

[Trae]

Well you cant build the entire system out overnight. I would not have gone to SM today if it wasnt for the expo line making the travel time easier, and my trip started on the Gold Line. My only complaint with the Expo line is the slow section between Western and Pico. Should have been put in a subway clearly (same with Blue Line between Washington and Pico). But I understand that there will be more connectivity once these other lines start opening.

[NSMP]

^word. For all its faults, expo is the reason I went out to Santa Monica yesterday.