LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Speaking of the Riverside line, I've been thinking that the South El Monte Metro line may cannibalize Metrolink's ridership at Industry. The Riverside line currently runs on a heavily trafficked freight line west of Ontario, but east of there, the line has little freight traffic and could be bought by Metrolink. That means that a short connection track could be built between East Ontario station and Rancho Cucamonga, via Ontario Airport, routing all Riverside line trains onto the San Bernardino Line west of Ontario. With a little bit of double tracking, and potentially electrification, this would mean that Metrolink could run trains every 20 minutes to Riverside (via Ontario Airport) and every 20 minutes to San Bernardino (and every 10 minutes west of Rancho Cucamonga. The only stations that would lose service would be Downtown Pomona (insignificant), and Industry (replaced by the South El Monte metro line.)

or it could be Eastside Phase 2 if the ROW was utilized and then the Riverside Line can be shared with an upgrade San Bernardino Line

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

or it could be Eastside Phase 2 if the ROW was utilized and then the Riverside Line can be shared with an upgrade San Bernardino Line

That was sort of my point.

Freight is almost exclusively on the UP line (which is fully double-tracked) from Colton to LAUS, via Pomona and Industry. My proposal would entirely avoid that. However, much of the existing San bernadino line is single track, and these segments would need to be double tracked to allow for frequent service (a investment that is big, but still less expensive per mile than building a new metro line):
Main line, LAUS to Ranch Cucamonga:
1. LA River Bridge (500 feet)
2. USC Medical Center-Irwindale Ave (this is by far the longest stretch, and much of it follows a tight ROW. A new route can be built for the 2 miles from Mission Rd/Valley Blvd to CSULA station, via a new station on the north side of USC Med Ctr. From CSULA to El Monte, a distance of 9 miles, a second track would have to be added to the median of the 10. This would require either roadway widening, or replacing an express lane, which is reasonable, since this will probably replace the Silver Line BRT. A new station may be added in Monterey Park. El Monte Metrolink would be relocated to El Monte BRT Station. From there, a new 6 mile elevated route would have to be built to Irwindale Ave., via Ramona Blvd., and a new Baldwin Park station. In total, this is a 17 mile route with 25 miles of new track.
3. 6.5 miles need to be double tracked from Covina to La Verne.
4. 4 miles need to be double tracked from Montclair to Rancho Cucamonga (Vineyard Avenue)
—————
Riverside branch, Rancho Cucamonga to Riverside
1. A new connection needs to be build for 5.5 miles from Rancho Cucamonga to East Ontario Station, via Ontario Airport.
2. 3 miles from Pedley to Jurupa Ave. Need to be double tracked.
3. The one mile approach into Downtown Riverside needs to be double tracked.
————-
San Bernardino branch, Rancho Cucamonga to San Bernardino:
1. 1.5 miles from Rancho Cucamonga to Etiwanda Ave. Needs to be double tracked.
2. 3.5 miles through Fontana need to be double tracked.
3. 3 miles through Rialto need to be double tracked.

In total, that is about 180 million dollars of new track, plus about 450 million dollars for electrification, excluding new trains. It is expensive, but we are essentially getting a 85 mile express metro line for less than one billion dollars.

PS. I think the Eastside Gold line, to make up for the loss of the Industry Metrolink Station, should be extended to Puente Hills Mall.

[Phil O.]

I swear, media coverage of the Crenshaw line (apart from the occasional post from the Source) is almost nil. Apparently, track installation has begun:
https://www.facebook.com/CrenshawRai...d180b6afc9f2c7

Also, the first grade crossing will be installed this week at Florence/Centinela:
https://twitter.com/crenshawrail/sta...82906610700288

[orulz]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

One thing to keep in mind if grade separation extends beyond the blue/expo wye, is that a significant distance can be saved by arcing the line to Expo/Vermont, under USC. This would mean a new station in the USC Campus somewhere, and cut the number of USC-area stations from three down to two.

That sounds like an awful lot of pain for not a whole lot of gain.

Signal pre-emption should be the first line of attack, and that gets nearly all the benefit of grade separation for transit users, with the cost of a bit of electronics (detection circuits and crossing gates - MAYBE $10 million for the whole line). The downside is that people riding in cars get held up more. Expo already does that at some intersections, so would it be too controversial to add preemption elsewhere?

If controversy is too great or traffic backups become unbearable as the line's frequency is increased, then grade separation should be on the table at major cross streets as needed. There could be bridges over (or trenches under) Jefferson, Vermont, Western/Rodeo, and Crenshaw, for example. At $25m each, that's $100 million. And, of course, extend the downtown subway south to Washington. With roughly 3/4 mile of new tunnel plus moving the Pico station underground, figure about $500 million. So a $600 million project overall.

It is unfortunate that the first phase of the Expo Line had to be built on the cheap and this was not included from the start. But I do think that upgrading the existing line would be enough to solve the problem and would save oodles of money compared with a new multi-$billion long tunnel from Pico to Western through USC.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by orulz

It is unfortunate that the first phase of the Expo Line had to be built on the cheap and this was not included from the start. But I do think that upgrading the existing line would be enough to solve the problem and would save oodles of money compared with a new multi-$billion long tunnel from Pico to Western through USC.

I agree. I'm just saying that if a tunnel is going to be built south of the blue/expo wye, it should go to Expo/Vermont, not Expo/Flower.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by orulz

That sounds like an awful lot of pain for not a whole lot of gain.

Signal pre-emption should be the first line of attack, and that gets nearly all the benefit of grade separation for transit users, with the cost of a bit of electronics (detection circuits and crossing gates - MAYBE $10 million for the whole line). The downside is that people riding in cars get held up more. Expo already does that at some intersections, so would it be too controversial to add preemption elsewhere?

No it's not because in the Downtown LA section there are no railroad gates which is where the added delay to cross traffic occurs. Here the preemption coupled with I believe is making Flower a transit/pedestrian priority street will make things a lot easier to implement.

And, of course, extend the downtown subway south to Washington. With roughly 3/4 mile of new tunnel plus moving the Pico station underground, figure about $500 million. So a $600 million project overall.

It is unfortunate that the first phase of the Expo Line had to be built on the cheap and this was not included from the start. But I do think that upgrading the existing line would be enough to solve the problem and would save oodles of money compared with a new multi-$billion long tunnel from Pico to Western through USC.

I would go one step further because just taking the tunnel to Washington Blvd would not be enough because the problem occurs of where do you place the portal. For the Blue Line the Grand Station location makes it cumbersome.

I would extend it to Jefferson to tie into the existing trench and re route the Blue Line using the eastern Expo Right of Way from Flower to Long Beach Avenue as the way to tie into the service and improve both capacity and reliability.

[orulz]

On further consideration, extending the downtown tunnel to the existing trench may be the right move after all. It's only one mile from Washington to Jefferson. Or you could cut back the tunnel by a quarter mile and avoid an extra underground station (which tend to be budget-busters) by putting the portal just south of 30th street, and then rising on a bridge over Jefferson with an elevated station there. Visual impacts of an elevated station can't possibly be a concern, considering that the elevated Harbor Freeway is right next door.

I still don't think realigning through USC is worth it, though.

[K 22]

Has there been any preference to where the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line is going to be running? I still think the best option is Fairfax but that's probably just me.

[202_Cyclist]

Bad news for the Purple line if Trump's budget is enacted.

http://www.greencaltrain.com/2017/03...ansit-funding/

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by orulz

On further consideration, extending the downtown tunnel to the existing trench may be the right move after all. It's only one mile from Washington to Jefferson. Or you could cut back the tunnel by a quarter mile and avoid an extra underground station (which tend to be budget-busters) by putting the portal just south of 30th street, and then rising on a bridge over Jefferson with an elevated station there. Visual impacts of an elevated station can't possibly be a concern, considering that the elevated Harbor Freeway is right next door.

I still don't think realigning through USC is worth it, though.

Doing this would require tunneling under the 110, would that significantly increase the cost?

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by K 22

Has there been any preference to where the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line is going to be running? I still think the best option is Fairfax but that's probably just me.

I believe Metro is updating the alternative analysis since the last one was done about 10 years ago. Fairfax is one of the three alternatives and I think probably the odds on favorite.

After alternative analysis, it will then go on to DEIR process, then FEIR, before construction can begin.

[Air055]

Eh, idk I'm personally in favor of the La Brea alignment, that way in the future they could do a proper "pink line" that runs under Santa Monica before turning onto San Vicente and later La Cienega and then Venice.


Credit to Car(e)-Free LA
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=3646

[ChargerCarl]

^I like this

[NSMP]

I wouldn't mind Fairfax if the money can be scrounged for it. It's significantly more expensive, but I definitely wouldn't be mad at the choice.

WrightConcept pointed out that Crenshaw was set to be the main beneficiary of an accelerated Purple Line phase 3, which now seems likely to cut the other way. If the Feds don't pony up for Wilshire, then we have to pay for the whole thing out of pocket, and likely won't be able to accelerate Crenshaw using that leftover money.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

WrightConcept pointed out that Crenshaw was set to be the main beneficiary of an accelerated Purple Line phase 3, which now seems likely to cut the other way. If the Feds don't pony up for Wilshire, then we have to pay for the whole thing out of pocket, and likely won't be able to accelerate Crenshaw using that leftover money.

Unless LA gets the Olympics.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Unless LA gets the Olympics.

The Olympics aren't a guarantee of anything, financially speaking.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by orulz

On further consideration, extending the downtown tunnel to the existing trench may be the right move after all. It's only one mile from Washington to Jefferson. Or you could cut back the tunnel by a quarter mile and avoid an extra underground station (which tend to be budget-busters) by putting the portal just south of 30th street, and then rising on a bridge over Jefferson with an elevated station there. Visual impacts of an elevated station can't possibly be a concern, considering that the elevated Harbor Freeway is right next door.

I still don't think realigning through USC is worth it, though.

It will be considering that if you combine both corridors to a slightly longer tunnel there's a possibility of receiving Federal grant money to build because of more ridership.

Also with the Blue Line is you place a portal at 18th Street or Washington/Flower it makes it difficult for a connection to the Blue Line without a complete rebuild anyways so why not combine the efforts and make it as cost effective as possible with an existing right of way that be used.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

It will be considering that if you combine both corridors to a slightly longer tunnel there's a possibility of receiving Federal grant money to build because of more ridership.

Also with the Blue Line is you place a portal at 18th Street or Washington/Flower it makes it difficult for a connection to the Blue Line without a complete rebuild anyways so why not combine the efforts and make it as cost effective as possible with an existing right of way that be used.

I agree. The tunnel would have to be about 1/2 a mile longer, and would cut about 3 more minuites off the travel time compared to a tunnel to Expo/Flower.

[Quixote]

Metro will now consider HRT for Vermont Corridor!

http://la.curbed.com/2017/3/23/15041...ro-los-angeles

[ChargerCarl]

I wonder how much NSMP's posts about it over at UrbanizeLA influenced this decision?