HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5901  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:25 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,073
$2.3B Union Station makeover takes another step forward

Metro Board green lights preconstruction for first phase of Link US

Steven Sharp
Urbanize Los Angeles
May 31, 2022

In a vote taken last week, the Metro Board of Directors approved a funding agreement with California High Speed Rail Authority for the initial phase of Union Station's $2.3-billion makeover and expansion.

The project, called Link Union Station, expands upon a longtime plan to construct run-through tracks at the southern end of the passenger rail hub, allowing trains to cross over the US-101 freeway. This would eliminate Union Station's historic stub-end layout, which forces all trains to enter and exit through the five-track throat to the north of the station platforms.

The vote by the Board adopts an agreement with the High-Speed Rail Authority for roughly $423.3 million in funding for the first phase of the project, as well as a $297.8 million preconstruction budget. That money, as reported by Streetsblog, will go towards the construction of a new viaduct over the freeway and two initial run-through tracks.

Not included in the initial phase are some of the pricier items in the scope of Link Union Station, including additional run-through tracks, a new passenger concourse, and raising the main platform area to provide clearance above the freeway.

Metro, which purchased Union Station in 2011 for $75 million, has thus far secured roughly $950 million in funding for the station's revamp. Completion of the run-through tracks and other improvements, allowing through routing for Metrolink, Amtrak, and future high-speed rail service, would allow Union Station to serve upwards of 200,000 daily passengers - double the number of people it served prior to the pandemic.

Union Station's master plan will also permit for new commercial developments on the property, and follows more modest investments along its perimeter, including new bus facilities at the station's eastern portal, and a new plaza and multi-use path are planned for its Alameda Street frontage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5902  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:34 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,073
Now, the pics from the above article:

Rendered aerial of Union Station with expanded passenger concourse and run-through tracks


Rendered view of station platforms at Union Station


Rendered view of Union Station east portal from Patsaouras Plaza


Rendered view of Union Station east portal entrance


Rendered view of expanded passenger tunnel


Rendered view from station platform


Rendered view of expanded passenger concourse


Rendered view of expanded passenger concourse


Rendered aerial view of Union Station with future commercial development
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5903  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:46 AM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,095
Looks amazing
Also that's what I like to see. Rail improvements (obviously) but also bus and pedestrian (and ofc car) improvements as well. And this while working in future (hopefully dense) commercial development
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5904  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:56 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
just a pool of mushy goo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 11,217
These renderings are purely illustrative right? Much like the much cooler imo circular concourse renderings from a few years ago...?
__________________
Everything new is old again

Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5905  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 4:46 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
These renderings are purely illustrative right? Much like the much cooler imo circular concourse renderings from a few years ago...?
Probably, I mean they haven’t even selected a design firm yet, right?

But as far as the actual concourse itself, what they’ve decided they’re going to do is widen out the existing one underneath the tracks.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5906  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2022, 4:29 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Since the majority of any subway project's cost is the stations, it stands to reason that four-track lines ought to be more common, but I'm not sure that TBM's can dig in a stack (I'm at least not aware of any examples of it). I'd be curious to know if a four-track option was ever considered for Crossrail in London.
Four-tracking was never considered for Crossrail because long metro-styled trainsets with automated signalling for high frequencies provides massive capacity. Pre-pandemic, the ridership projections of Crossrail were 250mn journeys per annum (with strong ridership recovery, this is realistic); that is more than double the entire pre-pandemic ridership of the LIRR.

Increasing the size of underground stations for more platforms massively ramps up the cost (e.g. the incredible costs for East Side Access in New York) and engineering complexity, for limited benefit. Far better to have more Crossrail-like lines on multiple axis increasing overall capacity, making new connections and reducing congestion elsewhere on the network.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2024-09-27 | London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2022-03-09
London General Update Thread updated: 2019-04-03 | High Speed 2 updated: 2024-07-22
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5907  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2022, 12:44 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,568
edit
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5908  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2022, 3:42 PM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
It looks like most of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor alignment proposals have it terminating at LAX. I suppose it could theoretically continue eastwards, on top of, or under either Arbor Vitae or Century to the sports complex. Are there any plans that have mentioned that?
I’ve long said this - Yes the foolish monorail plan mentions something about it - but what needs to happen is the HRT plan needs to mention it.

Often times in forums like these - proposals brought up by posters are pie in the sky or a bit toward fantasy land or one that doesn’t include other relevant priorities or considerations. But I think as costly as this could be - it would be wildly successful.

It’s a no brainer. A subway station that continues from LAX 96th/Aviation down Century with a mega, spacious underground station that has two spacious underground cooridors: one that leads directly to the Intuit dome with integration with the Intuit Dome plaza; and another leading directly toward SoFi Stadium with complete integration with the Hollywood park development. Think of the thousands of riders - all the people who will live and use HP on non-event days. Then the 80k fans for a minimum of 17 games a year at SoFi, the 20k fans for minimum 41 games a year at Intuit - of course the concerts at both venues. That single station could result in an additional million riders a year (WAY more then you’ll see from people having to make a horrifically inconvenient transfer at Crenshaw/Expo then ride an LRT line that’s not fully grade separated THEN transfer to an undersized & half assed People mover’)

Even more then that if the line extended an ADDITIONAL couple miles from that point - to end at Vermont & Century (intersecting with a future B extension.

It’s little details like this - seamless transitions, extra mile stations (IE Wilshire & 4th), safe trains, grade separations, frequentent headways) that’ll turn LA into the second city of public transit in North America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5909  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2022, 6:17 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,568
edit
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Jun 13, 2022 at 12:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5910  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2022, 3:25 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,073
California's most hazardous railway crossing will be upgraded

Susan Carpenter
Spectrum News 1
June 2, 2022

Each day, the intersection of Rosecrans and Marquardt Avenues in Santa Fe Springs is a flurry of traffic. Big rigs. Pickup trucks. Cars. People. Trains. All of them mix in a fast-moving blur where 112 trains and 45,000 vehicles cross daily, occasionally to deadly effect.

Between 2013 and 2021, the intersection has caused 31 collisions between vehicles and trains and six deaths, prompting the state to declare it the most hazardous railway crossing in California. But that is poised to change. On Thursday, Metro broke ground on a new grade separation project that is designed to prevent train traffic from coming into contact with other vehicles.

“Separating the train tracks from the cars and the pedestrians will not only make this intersection safe, it will fix what has been a traffic nightmare for years,” LA County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Janice Hahn said moments before donning a hard hat and throwing a ceremonial shovel full of dirt for the project. “People take their lives in their hands every time they come to this intersection.”

A combination of freight and commuter trains run through the rail crossing every seven minutes, blocking roadway traffic for 21 hours every week, she said. Besides Amtrak, Metrolink and BNSF Railway, the track is also slated to be part of the California High Speed Rail project.

When it is completed in two years, trains will no longer cross through the intersection along the same stretch of asphalt as other vehicles. Cars and trucks will pass over the tracks on a new bridge that allows the trains to pass under them.

Multiple agencies from different levels of government are helping fund the $156 million Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project. The Federal Rail Administration provided $15 million, and LA County residents ponied up $26.5 million through Measure R, the 2008 ballot measure voters passed to increase the local sales tax by half a cent to pay for transportation projects and improvements.

The California High Speed Rail Authority contributed $77 million. The authority’s Southern California Regional Director, LaDonna DiCamillo, said the project has multiple benefits beyond the safety improvement. It will decrease congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce noise. Once the project is complete, trains will no longer need to blow their horns as they approach the intersection to alert pedestrians and other vehicles that they are approaching.

Metro Chief Executive Stephanie Wiggins was the head of Metrolink in 2019 when a train carrying 200 people hit an RV at the Rosecrans/Marquardt rail crossing and she went to the scene of the crash.

“There’s nothing like seeing up close and personal the damage that can take place. Today’s milestone is really indicative of what public agencies can do to help save lives,” Wiggins said of the collaboration between Metro, the Federal Railroad Administration, the California High Speed Rail Authority and government leaders in Santa Fe Springs. “You’re really showing how we can be a model partnership together to deliver infrastructure.”



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5911  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2022, 10:19 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,073
The latest plan to woo transit riders in North San Fernando Valley is a subtle, but big, change

An unpopular bus rapid transit idea is dead. Metro's new plan reaches four times more riders on two bus lines — and more

Steve Scauzillo
Los Angeles Daily News
June 15, 2022

LA Metro unveiled a new, transit-lite bus improvement project for the north San Fernando Valley, dropping previous plans for a bus rapid transit line down the middle of Nordhoff Street that drew vociferous opposition nearly three years ago.

During a virtual community meeting on Wednesday, June 15, LA Metro staff revealed a new “network option” that would add bus-only lanes to Roscoe Boulevard between Lankershim and Topanga Canyon boulevards during weekday peak hours. No bus-only lanes are planned for Nordhoff, said Joe Forgiarini, Metro senior executive officer for operations.

Instead of a dedicated rapid bus similar to the Orange Line (now the G Line), bus-only lanes would be striped along Roscoe where curbside parking is already prohibited, and which becomes bus-exclusive from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on weekdays, Forgiarini explained. More bus service would be added as part of an upgrade to seven lines running along Roscoe, Nordhoff, Lankershim Boulevard, Reseda Boulevard, Sherman Way, Vanowen Street and Victory Boulevard.

“We don’t focus on a single (bus rapid transit) line,” said a Metro report released Wednesday. “But instead, on adding enhancements to existing service areas in the North San Fernando Valley — the ones that Valley riders are already using.”

Nordhoff, running through Chatsworth, Northridge, North Hills, Arleta, Pacoima and Lake View Terrace, would be improved with better bus shelters and buses that can control stop lights to help buses move more quickly.


The new version of the North San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project includes upgrades to bus service on two existing east-west lines (in green) on Roscoe Boulevard and Nordhoff Street. A key component is to make better connections to existing and future bus rapid transit and light-rail lines, also shown on the map.

A major objective of the North San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project is to shorten waiting times between bus arrivals to 10 minutes — from the current 15 minutes — on the Line 152 on Rosco, and the Line 166 on Nordhoff. These two major east-west thoroughfares are the most used.

The project would add 400 new bus shelters to protect riders from hot days, including “bus bulbs” that move the bus out of the traffic lane into a bus-length notch to stop, pickup and drop off. The bulbs will also allow vehicles to turn right.

Other plan improvements include replacing natural gas buses with zero-emission electric buses; new buses with front and rear entrances to speed up on-boarding; and buses equipped with transponders that can extend green lights.

“We can reach a lot more of the Valley population in the network improvements approach,” said Forgiarini.

Ridership on LA Metro buses and trains has fallen since the coronavirus pandemic hit in March 2020, after many businesses were shut down that year. But ridership, especially in the north San Fernando Valley where more people depend on transit than in other parts of Los Angeles, is slowly increasing.

For example, average daily ridership on the Nordhoff bus line was 6,000 on weekdays pre-COVID, and is now at 4,000. The Roscoe Line had 11,500 pre-COVID and now has about 8,000 for the same ridership categories, Forgiarini said.

The original bus rapid transit concept was dropped because it didn’t fit with LA Metro’s NextGen Bus Plan update, according to a Metro report. The new approach spreads out improvements in a more equitable manner, reaching more low-and-moderate income riders who depend on buses to get to work, school and stores.

The new version will reach four times as many people, just counting the two main bus lines, for a total of 163,000 people. Under the previous BRT plan only a single line would have reached 44,000, Forgiarini said.

A study revealed that the typical bus rider in the North San Fernando Valley rides frequently. About 66% ride five days per week. About 84% of bus riders do not own a car. Fifty-eight percent are Latinx and 50% live below the poverty line.

The project emphasizes more connectivity to other lines, such as the Orange Line BRT (now the G Line) and the future East San Fernando Valley Light Rail line. Also, the planners say the enhanced bus lines will improve the connections to Cal State University, Northridge, in part by adding larger bus shelters at two stops at the campus.

Without building a bus rapid transit (BRT) line, this project will cost about $180 million, most of it coming from Measure M tax dollars. Measure M is a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in Los Angeles County. The previous version would’ve cost between $194 million and $316 million.

Metro officials said the new plan would go before the Metro Board this fall, and if approved, the project could be completed by the fall of 2024 or winter of 2025.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5912  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2022, 10:28 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,523
The success of SoCal in building grade separations is really incredible. 20 miles from Whittier to Yorba Linda, and only a handful of grade crossings remain. Most of these were built in my lifetime, and I'm only in my 30s.

In Chicago we really struggle to get these built despite a clear need. All the railroads in the city were elevated 120 years ago thankfully, but hundreds of those bridges are falling apart now. We can't seem to build new grade separations either, where they're needed in the suburbs.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5913  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2022, 10:42 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
just a pool of mushy goo
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 11,217
I 100% blame the railroads. If they cared or thought it was important or valued at all what was good fpr anything other than their bottom line you would have grade sep projects left and right. Just look at how many high visibilty rail bridges are left rotting, faded and flaking apart for decades on end like something you'd see in some third world country. I don't think it's a coincidence that the modern countries that have almost entirely grade separated and have well maintained structures have nationalized railways. The old addage that a private company would take better care of their assets seems to be totally flipped in the case of US railroads.
__________________
Everything new is old again

Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5914  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2022, 2:03 PM
canucklehead2 canucklehead2 is offline
Sex Marxist of Notleygrad
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YEG
Posts: 6,847
Hmm needs more towers... Seriously though the vision is good however I'd densify the district with housing and hospitality density bonuses. Aka the 400M around the station would and should be the LA equal of Grand Central district or Penn Yards
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5915  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2022, 2:06 PM
canucklehead2 canucklehead2 is offline
Sex Marxist of Notleygrad
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YEG
Posts: 6,847
Can't help but want a new TALLEST icon for the LA skyline attached to the station itself like in every other major train city!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5916  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2022, 2:23 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,568
Major updates, courtesy of numble on Twitter:

Quote:
LA Metro June 2022 update on Sepulveda rail project. 93% of comments in scoping period supported heavy rail, 7% supported monorail. UCLA connection was most mentioned topic. Next update in the Fall would be an update on alignments and stations.
https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...Cjna-n29YqAAAA

Quote:
LA Metro June 2022 update on Crenshaw Northern project. Most commenters prefer Fairfax/San Vicente route. Spur idea was studied and dismissed. Santa Monica/La Cienega station removed. Above-ground San Vicente options removed (only studying underground).
https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...Cj_aOGvdYqAAAA

Quote:
Comments from Caltrans and CHP indicate monorail may face issues from those agencies. Caltrans says construction on or next to I-405 requires extensive cooperation with Caltrans, and Caltrans may not allow use of some land. CHP says monorail would have safety and traffic issues.
https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...C97eqdnNUqAAAA
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5917  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2022, 2:33 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,568
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5918  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2022, 2:39 AM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,095
Woo-hoo! Hopefully that monorail plan dies.
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5919  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2022, 2:41 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,568
I believe a 100% underground alternative will be chosen, which narrows it down to Alternatives 5 and 6. I'm pulling for Alternative 6 because I prefer the Bundy terminus (and future extension down Centinela), the use of existing technology and preserving the opportunity for future interlining, and I think 4-car trains at 2.5-minute frequencies might not be sufficient (or at least it would result in a lot of trains being sardine cans). This is a rare instance in which I hope Metro's infamous lack of creativity and imagination win out. And since Alternative 5 includes one extra station, Alternative 6 could actually be the cheaper option of the two.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5920  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2022, 2:56 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I believe a 100% underground alternative will be chosen, which narrows it down to Alternatives 5 and 6. I'm pulling for Alternative 6 because I prefer the Bundy terminus (and future extension down Centinela), the use of existing technology and preserving the opportunity for future interlining, and I think 4-car trains at 2.5-minute frequencies might not be sufficient (or at least it would result in a lot of trains being sardine cans). This is a rare instance in which I hope Metro's infamous lack of creativity and imagination win out. And since Alternative 5 includes one extra station, Alternative 6 could actually be the cheaper option of the two.
Do you have (or can you direct to) photos of Alternatives 5 and 6? Sorry, I looked all the way back to posts in this thread from late 2021 and cannot locate any.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.