LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[NSMP]

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.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by NSMP

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.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by NSMP

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.

Originally Posted by NSMP

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.

[NSMP]

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.

[202_Cyclist]

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

[numble]

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[numble]

Metro finished studying a potential light rail connection between the future West Santa Ana Branch and Eastside Gold Line Phase 2. The 3 highest performing alignments were partial subway alignments along Olympic, Washington and Randolph, costing an estimated $1.3-1.7 billion. Metro concluded such a connection is redundant and will not proceed with further studies due to lack of funding and the fact that it is not a priority on any long range plan.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxvfbuupkn...Study.pdf?dl=0

[numble]

Metro has new recommendations for the West Santa Ana Line. Eliminates sharing of Blue Line stations in favor of aerial alignment, eliminates study of Pershing Square alignment, eliminates study of Bloomfield extension, adds multiple aerial grade separations.
https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...ch=&FullText=1

The project definition has been updated in response to comments received as part of the scoping process, ongoing coordination with corridor cities, particularly cities in the south, and on-going refinement of technical and environmental analysis in order to minimize or avoid environmental impacts. The updated project definition will be carried forward into the Draft EIS/EIR. Attachment A summarizes the proposed refinements and rationale and Attachment B includes the updated project alignment map and sketch profiles.

The key updates include:
• Three stations: Washington, Vernon and 183rd/Gridley Station will be removed from further study.
• Alignment will be aerial grade-separated over the existing I-10 freeway and continue in an aerial configuration until Slauson Station.
• Five aerial grade-separations will be added.
• Alternative G2 Pershing Square design option will be removed from further study.
• Optional Bloomfield extension and station will be removed from further study.

4 car trains were also eliminated from study in this round:

Four-car Platforms Evaluation
At the May 2018 Board meeting, Director Fasana requested staff to study the feasibility and need to have 4-car platforms on the WSAB Project in response to the projected WSAB ridership in order to ensure the line is designed so as to adequately meet demand. Additional ridership and capacity (passenger load) analysis for opening day and the horizon 2042 year were conducted. The results indicate that the capacity is expected to be adequate for Alternative E. For Alternative G, forecast passenger loads are expected to exceed the planned capacity for the segment between Slauson Station and 7th/Metro Station during peak periods. This is due in part to the large number of Blue Line customers forecast to transfer to the WSAB line at the Slauson Station in order to reach the downtown transit core.

The increase from 3- to 4-car train consists was analyzed but was not deemed cost effective as it would not significantly improve the capacity north of Slauson Station. A longer vehicle size and corresponding platform size will also have impacts to the corridor cities and the project including additional capital costs, traffic impacts due to increased time necessary to pass through at-grade intersections in the southern segment, potential need for the intersections to be grade separated, and higher operating and maintenance costs.

The most effective solution for addressing long-term capacity issues between Slauson and the downtown transit core is to plan for the ability to operate a “short-line” service with 2.5 minutes headway during the peak. This would allow up to a doubling of capacity focused on the most impacted segment of the route. This solution provides the ability to contain capital and operating cost increases by targeting improvements in the high-demand segment.

Therefore, 4-car platforms on the WSAB line is not recommended as 3-car train consists would provide sufficient capacity when a short-line service is taken into account for the alignment segment north of Slauson Station.

[DJM19]

Disappointing to eliminate 4-train capacity. This is one of the most short-sighted things about Metro, across the system. They are planning for a city that never embraces transit in any real way.

[NSMP]

2.5 minute headways would be better than four car trains. But apparently that only happens if 7th is selected which I’d bet against.

[numble]

After receiving 4 construction bids for the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, the construction authority will report next week that estimated costs increase from $1.52 billion to $2.1 billion. There currently is no funding identified for this $570 million gap.

https://foothillgoldline.org/wp-cont...rd-Reports.pdf

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Disappointing to eliminate 4-train capacity. This is one of the most short-sighted things about Metro, across the system. They are planning for a city that never embraces transit in any real way.

Four-car trains were never a realistic option. It was simply a PR ploy by Metro to appease those who shamed them for not studying an HRT option.

[orulz]

Is routing blue line trains onto the new line being considered at all? If anything, the "shuttle" should be the part where the Blue Line runs along Washington.

[jmecklenborg]

I am confused -- is the aerial structure going over the same street as the existing blue line tracks? If so, this actually makes some sense because a bridge over the freight tracks would be necessary at either end of the interlined section anyway.

But if that's the case, why not move the blue line onto the new elevated structure?

[numble]

Regarding interlining the West Santa Ana Line with the Blue Line, they did ask potential P3 contractors the question of interlining in their P3 Market Sounding Report for the West Santa Ana Line, so it seems it is on the table. But it looks like a P3 concessionaire would prefer they do not interline:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/cuv8gjfglg...06-29.pdf?dl=0

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I am confused -- is the aerial structure going over the same street as the existing blue line tracks? If so, this actually makes some sense because a bridge over the freight tracks would be necessary at either end of the interlined section anyway.

But if that's the case, why not move the blue line onto the new elevated structure?

I don’t think they’ve refined the cross-section for the Long Beach Ave segment yet. If the Blue Line and the WSAB remain separate, then at the very least the Slauson station should be redesigned for a cross-platform transfer.

[SIGSEGV]

Alon Levy wrote about LA transit yesterday: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2...geles-density/

[numble]

Due to the lack of funding, the Gold Line Construction Authority proposes shrinking the extension from 12.3 miles to Montclair, to 8 miles to La Verne, with another phase when more funding is secured (Phase 2C?):
https://foothillgoldline.org/wp-cont...-Statement.pdf

Today, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (Construction Authority) announced a proposed plan to deliver nearly 70% of the Foothill Gold Line light rail extension from Glendora to Montclair at least two years ahead of schedule and avoid tens of millions of dollars annually in market escalation and risk money proposed by the four design-build teams competing for the Glendora to Montclair Alignment contract; while also increasing the budget for the 12.3-mile, six station light rail project by $570 million to a total project budget of $2.1 billion. The proposed plan is subject to environmental approval.

The need for the proposed plan follows receipt of bids by the four teams competing for the design-build contract. All four bids reflect a significant unfavorable shift in market conditions since the agency completed the project estimate two years ago. When added with current unknowns and risk within the construction industry locally and nationally, these factors resulted in the long-term construction project becoming especially expensive and risky for bidders.

In response, the Construction Authority is proposing to revise the phasing of project construction to deliver the first eight miles of the 12.3-mile light rail extension (including delivery of the Glendora, San Dimas and La Verne stations) at least two years ahead of the original schedule, while working to secure the additional funding necessary to complete the project to Montclair.

If the plan is approved, the agency can deliver it within the ongoing design-build procurement by asking bidders to provide revised bids for the first eight miles of the project and including an option that would allow the winning team to complete the full project to Montclair if funding is secured within two years of Notice to Proceed. The anticipated benefits of this revised plan, if approved, include:
• Completion of the majority of the Glendora to Montclair light rail extension at least two years ahead of the original schedule, including: delivery of three new stations, 65% of the grade crossings, 72% of the structures, and 80% of the freight system relocation.
• Saving tens of millions of dollars annually in escalation being charged at historically high market rates, by eliminating years off the original construction schedule.
• Isolating costs associated with building the vastly more complicated and risk-burdened eastern portion of the project that shares a corridor with Metrolink.
• Providing the Construction Authority flexibility for procuring the eastern portion of the project to ensure the best price, including the potential to complete the extension to Montclair as part of the ongoing procurement and the opportunity to re-procure it separately if market conditions improve.

In order to conduct the necessary environmental review associated with the La Verne Station becoming a possible interim terminus if full funding is not secured in time to build to Montclair during this contract, it is expected that any award of the design-build contract would be delayed by six months.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

2.5 minute headways would be better than four car trains. But apparently that only happens if 7th is selected which I’d bet against.

You are betting against 7th because the politicians are lined up for Union Station even though none of them know anything about transit and how their constituents use it, or you think Union Station is actually better?

I follow your twitter so I think I know the answer but it helps if you elaborate some more on your post for other people.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by bzcat

You are betting against 7th because the politicians are lined up for Union Station even though none of them know anything about transit and how their constituents use it, or you think Union Station is actually better?

I follow your twitter so I think I know the answer but it helps if you elaborate some more on your post for other people.

It can't be both?

I'm pretty well sure I know NSMP's answer too, but I'll let them tell it. Regardless, Metro is pretty trapped since they've been selling the line for years as "connecting SE LA to Union Station and the regional transit network". Changing the line into a connection between SE LA and the financial district this late in the game, even if it makes more engineering sense, is going to rile up a whole lot of people. That's not something you want at such a critical stage of the project, especially if you're trying to keep to as tight a schedule as Metro currently has planned.