|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 18, 2013 13:26:43 GMT -8
...Sounds like the heavy rail and tunnel concept goo.gl/maps/G8KF7 depicted last year is pretty much my thought ...to finally link the Westside with the Valley and cut down commuting expense between a Valley commercial district and UCLA/Westwood Village and, at the same time, connect to a North-South Van Nuys Bl. subway. Seem like the momentum exists to start up this concept as well.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 3, 2013 9:22:13 GMT -8
Came across this photo of the Seattle Way viaduct on their twitter feed. Gives a good idea of what a 57' diameter tunnel looks like. Will be interesting to see how this worlds largest diameter TBM finishes up. I believe they will have two lanes of traffic in each direction, stacked on top of each other. I'll have to check the MTA documents to see if they have decided how a Sepulveda Pass tunnel will operate. If they combine rail and cars, and have a single bore tunnel, maybe they would run trains in both directions on one level, and have all the cars on the other level running in the direction of the morning and evening commutes? RT
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 3, 2013 9:45:15 GMT -8
this link is useful for following tunneling progress, though I don't think they're updating it, considering tunneling started in june. www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/About/FollowBerthaI figure if this tunnel gets built on schedule that Bertha gets shipped down to LA to finish the 710. And that happens before the 405 tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Dec 3, 2013 16:47:38 GMT -8
Came across this photo of the Seattle Way viaduct on their twitter feed. Gives a good idea of what a 57' diameter tunnel looks like. Will be interesting to see how this worlds largest diameter TBM finishes up. I believe they will have two lanes of traffic in each direction, stacked on top of each other. I'll have to check the MTA documents to see if they have decided how a Sepulveda Pass tunnel will operate. If they combine rail and cars, and have a single bore tunnel, maybe they would run trains in both directions on one level, and have all the cars on the other level running in the direction of the morning and evening commutes? RT There are 2 different concepts at this time. See link lametthesource.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/concepts2.jpg thesource.metro.net/2012/06/22/study-update-on-sepulveda-pass-transit-corridor-many-concepts-under-review/Concept 4, a single bore tunnel with 2 lanes of traffic each direction; and Concept 6, 2 tunnels each carrying 2 traffic lanes and a privately operated rail shuttle, which I would guess means Metro operated but with higher fares.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 14, 2013 11:49:15 GMT -8
Recently I read an article about Bertha, the 5-story TBM (tunnel boring machine), stuck in the middle of its bore in Seattle. seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022433048_99tunnelobstructionxml.html. Apparently Bertha is drilling a freeway tunnel underneath downtown Seattle. Seems like a no brainer to use such a machine to drill a rail or freeway tunnel underneath the Sepulveda pass. Earthquakes come to mind ...but if earthquake-prone Seattle could field such a solution for the 99, certainly LA County could as well for the 405--either rail, freeway or both. I anticipate that current construction is only going to briefly and minimally impact congestion.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 16, 2013 10:13:02 GMT -8
I imagine they'll use Bertha or a similarly sized machine for the sepulveda pass. But I figure the 710 will get Bertha or a similar tunnel first.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 4, 2014 23:31:44 GMT -8
Since this is being explored as a P3 (Concept 6), I hope this doesn't mean that the rail component will just be a high-speed, limited-stop service. That's what the initial concept map suggests. Concept 5 (LRT/HRT) provides the standard local service, but it's not a P3 candidate.
If this is just going to be a high-speed rail line, then why even build this project in the first place? That's such a wasted and lost opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 5, 2014 10:20:59 GMT -8
Concept 5 is rail only and it's not going to happen if you want private investment.
Concept 6 is a car AND rail tunnel so it's the one that will most likely to happen.
Concept 5 and 6 are the same through Sepulveda Pass, the geographic area of the study. There will be no local service between Ventura Blvd and Westwood in either scenario.
Concept 6 doesn't preclude light rail extension at grade north of Ventura Blvd but that's a different study (Van Nuy Blvd corridor).
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 5, 2014 11:06:30 GMT -8
Big bertha tweeted this the other day:
Total tunnel contract = $1.35 billion. Budget for tunnel boring = $82 million. Spent on tunnel boring thru 1/ 31 = $20.5 mill.
I feel like with those numbers a pure HRT tunnel from Westwood to the Orangeline would be doable from Measure R (700 million available for the tunnel, right?) and a Measure R+ that would be on a ballot this year or in 2016. You wouldn't need an awful private partnership. If they can tunnel under Seattle for that cheap, it should be even cheaper to tunnel under land that is 90% empty mountains from UCLA to Ventura Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 5, 2014 11:13:41 GMT -8
Tunnel cost is only a small part of the cost of a rail line. Expo line (15.2 miles) is going to cost $2.5 billion when it is done so that should give you an idea how much it will cost to build a LRT line from Orange line to Westwood (also around 15 miles). Sepulveda line will have fewer stations than Expo line but more of them will be underground so it kind of evens out. Then add another hundred million or so for the tunneling cost?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 5, 2014 11:21:11 GMT -8
Concept 5 is rail only and it's not going to happen if you want private investment. Concept 6 is a car AND rail tunnel so it's the one that will most likely to happen. Concept 5 and 6 are the same through Sepulveda Pass, the geographic area of the study. There will be no local service between Ventura Blvd and Westwood in either scenario. Concept 6 doesn't preclude light rail extension at grade north of Ventura Blvd but that's a different study (Van Nuy Blvd corridor). Concept 6 with rail and car tunnel scares me. How much more car lanes do you need? That'll be like 8 car lanes each way between the Valley and the Westside. At that point, what's the point of rail as you are just funding its competition. Then people are going to say "nobody takes trains anyways", heck because driving is way tooooo convenient in the city of LA.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 12:31:31 GMT -8
Concept 5 is rail only and it's not going to happen if you want private investment. Concept 6 is a car AND rail tunnel so it's the one that will most likely to happen. Concept 5 and 6 are the same through Sepulveda Pass, the geographic area of the study. There will be no local service between Ventura Blvd and Westwood in either scenario. Concept 6 doesn't preclude light rail extension at grade north of Ventura Blvd but that's a different study (Van Nuy Blvd corridor). Well, yes, Ventura-Westwood is just mountainous area. You're not going to put stations there. Although Roger Moliere said that they'll be going right under the Getty Center and that they're interested in having, say, an escalator connection. A UCLA campus station would also be ideal. But in looking at the Concept 6 map, it shows an alignment stretching from Van Nuys Metrolink to Century/Aviation with in-line stations at the Orange, Purple, and Expo Lines. What about local stations like in Concept 5? This line won't be very usable if it's just going to be a connector.
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on Mar 5, 2014 13:22:57 GMT -8
Remember that Concept 6's rail tunnel is a 'private shuttle', not a Metro line. Although it connects with Metro, it would be operated separately and independently from the Metro system, ie a 3rd party looking for profit. Other station points would not greatly increase profits while drastically increasing costs, so the potential private operators aren't interested in them.
As it stands, Measure R can't fund any of the tunnel options and its likely that barring a federal or private sector angel investment. I really don't know what to think about the whole study/situation as it is, and I can envision it taking a whole host of twists and turns in the coming years...
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 13:40:30 GMT -8
Remember that Concept 6's rail tunnel is a 'private shuttle', not a Metro line. Although it connects with Metro, it would be operated separately and independently from the Metro system, ie a 3rd party looking for profit. Other station points would not greatly increase profits while drastically increasing costs, so the potential private operators aren't interested in them.As it stands, Measure R can't fund any of the tunnel options and its likely that barring a federal or private sector angel investment. I really don't know what to think about the whole study/situation as it is, and I can envision it taking a whole host of twists and turns in the coming years... Good point. But I'd argue that a subway station directly serving the UCLA campus would be well worth the investment. The Wilshire/Westwood Purple Line station serves Westwood Village, but not UCLA itself. Other than that, yes, everything else you could do without. It's a sacrifice I'd accept if it meant having the entire Sylmar-LAX route (as an HRT line) done by 2030. If the ridership demand is there, you could always add infill stations.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 13:53:46 GMT -8
Couldn't Metro, in theory, cover the costs of some of the stations with the Measure R/Measure R 2.0 provisions? The private contractor would build x, y, z stations and Metro would compensate them. Yes, I know that isn't a perfect plan because Metro would stand to lose millions of dollars in fare recovery, but isn't that already happening?
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Mar 5, 2014 14:00:17 GMT -8
Concept 6 is basically a express version of the current LAX Flyaway service. It's not really interesting to anyone but airport commuters. The ridership estimates also reflect this fact: Concept 6 is expected to have 58,000 total daily boardings in 2035, while Concept 5A is expected to have 90,000 total daily boardings. I'm almost tempted to call it a tunnel to nowhere, since its northern connection terminus will have no good public transit connections other than local buses. So after looking at Concept 5A, I updated my map accordingly. Unlike the heavy rail concept 5B, 5A offers the ability to add branch lines in the Valley and increase ridership; one such through service branch could connect Chatsworth to LAX via Canoga and Parthenia, incidentally connecting CSUN to UCLA in the process. Is there any reason why Concept 1 couldn't be built out along with Concept 5A? Concept 1 is the least expensive option and could offer through service via Sepulveda Boulevard while the 5A LRT is under construction... mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zFurjmU9jKtU.klfUZ9aJqrTI
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 5, 2014 14:11:59 GMT -8
Couldn't Metro, in theory, cover the costs of some of the stations with the Measure R/Measure R 2.0 provisions? The private contractor would build x, y, z stations and Metro would compensate them. Yes, I know that isn't a perfect plan because Metro would stand to lose millions of dollars in fare recovery, but isn't that already happening? I think this along the right lines. I think a UCLA station here would be fantastic and a missed opp. if not there. Also, a station between the Expo Line and LAX would be good too. Other than that, I think it is fine with just Sylmar (Antelope Valley Line Connection), Van Nuys (Ventura Line Connection), Orange Line Connection, maybe a Ventura Blvd. station, UCLA, Westwood Village (Purple Line Connection), Expo Line Connection, Mar Vista/West Culver City Station possibly, and LAX. A line like this is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10B. Even with a Measure R+, it is doubtful there would be enough local money to cover anywhere near that. New Starts won't cover much either as that is being scaled back by Congress. A PPP is probably the only choice or it will never happen. I am leery of the car tunnel, because there will be a lot of opposition to that, depending on where the tunnel surfaces and so forth. I do like the idea of commuters funding the whole project though and people in the Valley will pay $10-$15 a pop no problem to save 30 minutes on their commute each way.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 15:43:23 GMT -8
Concept 6 is basically a express version of the current LAX Flyaway service. It's not really interesting to anyone but airport commuters. The ridership estimates also reflect this fact: Concept 6 is expected to have 58,000 total daily boardings in 2035, while Concept 5A is expected to have 90,000 total daily boardings. I'm almost tempted to call it a tunnel to nowhere, since its northern connection terminus will have no good public transit connections other than local buses. So after looking at Concept 5A, I updated my map accordingly. Unlike the heavy rail concept 5B, 5A offers the ability to add branch lines in the Valley and increase ridership; one such through service branch could connect Chatsworth to LAX via Canoga and Parthenia, incidentally connecting CSUN to UCLA in the process.Is there any reason why Concept 1 couldn't be built out along with Concept 5A? Concept 1 is the least expensive option and could offer through service via Sepulveda Boulevard while the 5A LRT is under construction... mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zFurjmU9jKtU.klfUZ9aJqrTIBecause this is a PPP, all tracks, stations, and maintenance facilities have to be separate. There's no point in having LRT just so you can interline/combine it with other lines. And people don't want to pay a premium fare for a sub-standard (euphemism for crappy) streetcar. That's not premium service. You do realize that HRT over LRT means a whopping difference of 16 minutes? That's a big deal. There are plenty of other potential LRT projects for the Valley.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Mar 5, 2014 15:43:31 GMT -8
Concept 5 is rail only and it's not going to happen if you want private investment. Concept 6 is a car AND rail tunnel so it's the one that will most likely to happen. Concept 5 and 6 are the same through Sepulveda Pass, the geographic area of the study. There will be no local service between Ventura Blvd and Westwood in either scenario. Concept 6 doesn't preclude light rail extension at grade north of Ventura Blvd but that's a different study (Van Nuy Blvd corridor). Concept 6 with rail and car tunnel scares me. How much more car lanes do you need? That'll be like 8 car lanes each way between the Valley and the Westside. At that point, what's the point of rail as you are just funding its competition. Then people are going to say "nobody takes trains anyways", heck because driving is way tooooo convenient in the city of LA. I can agree with that.... what needs to be done is to convert those shiny new lanes on the 405 to premium lanes and charge "$10-15 bucks a pop" like masonite said.... and use 100% of that money to start saving up for a metro owned rail tunnel... and when it is built to subsidize it's operation. quite possibly, a future tax change or federal administration could make that money available.... the money was there for the red line subway to go to the valley (as I understand %70 federally funded).. so maybe in the future it can become available, nothing should be done to preclude this.... and definitely no more money should be spent on expanding freeways... the other day at central library I ran across a book form the 70s "Ride Free Drive Free", which basically proposed that the way to solve the traffic problem is to charge motorist at peak hours and use that money to subsidize efficient mass transit. seems to me this makes a whole lot of sense given that there are people that will pay to ride the express lanes.. especially on the 405.... seems to me metro's first step should be to start earning some money with those new lanes they wasted on (that was mostly federally funded?)... my view is that metro should wait and see what happens with funding on this one.... but the ultimate goal should be a publicly owned LRT or HRT rail tunnel... also for those wondering were the options being discussed can be viewed: media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/Appendix%20B%20-%20Part%201.pdfhere are the options currently being considered:
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 15:53:17 GMT -8
Couldn't Metro, in theory, cover the costs of some of the stations with the Measure R/Measure R 2.0 provisions? The private contractor would build x, y, z stations and Metro would compensate them. Yes, I know that isn't a perfect plan because Metro would stand to lose millions of dollars in fare recovery, but isn't that already happening? I think this along the right lines. I think a UCLA station here would be fantastic and a missed opp. if not there. Also, a station between the Expo Line and LAX would be good too. Other than that, I think it is fine with just Sylmar (Antelope Valley Line Connection), Van Nuys (Ventura Line Connection), Orange Line Connection, maybe a Ventura Blvd. station, UCLA, Westwood Village (Purple Line Connection), Expo Line Connection, Mar Vista/West Culver City Station possibly, and LAX. A line like this is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10B. Even with a Measure R+, it is doubtful there would be enough local money to cover anywhere near that. New Starts won't cover much either as that is being scaled back by Congress. A PPP is probably the only choice or it will never happen. I am leery of the car tunnel, because there will be a lot of opposition to that, depending on where the tunnel surfaces and so forth. I do like the idea of commuters funding the whole project though and people in the Valley will pay $10-$15 a pop no problem to save 30 minutes on their commute each way. But we're only talking about Metro funding 3-4 stations. How much would that be, $1.5-2 billion? That sounds very doable. The private entity would build stations at Ventura Blvd., UCLA, Westwood/Santa Monica, and Venice/Overland and Metro would pay them back. What they lose in fare recovery they get back in terms of not having to handle operations and maintenance. And the more useful this line is, the more useful the Orange, Purple, and Expo Lines become.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Mar 5, 2014 16:32:39 GMT -8
So after looking at Concept 5A, I updated my map accordingly. Unlike the heavy rail concept 5B, 5A offers the ability to add branch lines in the Valley and increase ridership; one such through service branch could connect Chatsworth to LAX via Canoga and Parthenia, incidentally connecting CSUN to UCLA in the process.Because this is a PPP, all tracks, stations, and maintenance facilities have to be separate. There's no point in having LRT just so you can interline/combine it with other lines. And people don't want to pay a premium fare for a sub-standard (euphemism for crappy) streetcar. That's not premium service. You do realize that HRT over LRT means a whopping difference of 16 minutes? That's a big deal. There are plenty of other potential LRT projects for the Valley. Concept 6 is a entirely separate PPP system. Concept 5A and 5B would be Metro systems. HRT to Sherman Oaks will require a transfer from anywhere else in the Valley, which will add 3+ minutes depending on how long you have to wait for the next departure. In the Metro study, upgrading from LRT (5A) to HRT (5B) yields a marginal increase of about 10,000 boardings per day (from 90,000 to 100,000). Furthermore, as has been previously pointed out, HRT to Sylmar isn't really justified. Implementing Option 1 first with dedicated bus lanes in the I-405 shoulders would not only allow a Sepulveda BRT to be implemented from Sylmar to LAX, but it would also greatly speed up the current LAX Flyaway premium service, which is currently forced to share the HOV lanes. I simply can't see the justification in spending public money toward a private LAX people mover to Van Nuys that would serve little more than half the boardings of an equivalent LRT/HRT setup. When Option 1 is nearing capacity, planning and construction on Option 5A could continue as an extension of the Van Nuys corridor. It's the only way that makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 5, 2014 16:58:23 GMT -8
this is a PPP, all tracks, stations, and maintenance facilities have to be separate. There's no point in having LRT just so you can interline/combine it with other lines. It actually has more to do with the fact that it makes it MUUUUCH easier and cheaper, per mile, to extend the line to Sylmar to the North, and South to LAX, as LRT. Connectivity aside, I really doubt the private industry would get behind such a long line. Maybe the initial Venture Blvd to Expo segment, but not the whole darn route. I mean, it wouldn't make sense, since the highway toll lanes wouldn't go anywhere near the same distance to compete with a transit line. All you have to do is grade-seperate the line at major intersections(Roscoe, Sherman Way, Oxnard, etc) until the Parthenia split (then a longer aerial viaduct is probably the viable option), and you've got a line similar to Expo Line in speed - excluding the Flower st portion. And yet it would garner only 10,000 more riders than LRT. Other than the conversion and extension of the Orange Line corridor, what other near-term "potential LRT projects" are there?? Im an optimist, but Reseda and Ventura Blvds are probably a ways off, no?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 5, 2014 17:06:32 GMT -8
I think this along the right lines. I think a UCLA station here would be fantastic and a missed opp. if not there. Also, a station between the Expo Line and LAX would be good too. Other than that, I think it is fine with just Sylmar (Antelope Valley Line Connection), Van Nuys (Ventura Line Connection), Orange Line Connection, maybe a Ventura Blvd. station, UCLA, Westwood Village (Purple Line Connection), Expo Line Connection, Mar Vista/West Culver City Station possibly, and LAX. A line like this is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10B. Even with a Measure R+, it is doubtful there would be enough local money to cover anywhere near that. New Starts won't cover much either as that is being scaled back by Congress. A PPP is probably the only choice or it will never happen. I am leery of the car tunnel, because there will be a lot of opposition to that, depending on where the tunnel surfaces and so forth. I do like the idea of commuters funding the whole project though and people in the Valley will pay $10-$15 a pop no problem to save 30 minutes on their commute each way. But we're only talking about Metro funding 3-4 stations. How much would that be, $1.5-2 billion? That sounds very doable. The private entity would build stations at Ventura Blvd., UCLA, Westwood/Santa Monica, and Venice/Overland and Metro would pay them back. What they lose in fare recovery they get back in terms of not having to handle operations and maintenance. And the more useful this line is, the more useful the Orange, Purple, and Expo Lines become. I was saying the whole line is going to cost somewhere around $10B in total. People on here (not you), were saying PPP is a bad idea and Metro should just build the line on its own, and my response was that is not possible. We'd be lucky to get 25% of this from the feds. The days of 70% or more matches from the federal government ended in the 70s. I don't disagree with some version of your plan.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 5, 2014 19:12:19 GMT -8
we don't need to worry about the 10B of the total right now. We just need to worry about the four station (orange line, ventura, ucla, purple line) phase one. Get through the choke point of the sepulveda pass, connect two rail lines and it's only 2 billion.
Building out additional phases can happen later, the important thing is to get that four station phase one built.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 5, 2014 19:17:58 GMT -8
The whole reason why a private entity would be interested in investing in such a major infrastructure project is to make $$$, and you do that by charging premium fares. An at-grade streetcar isn't premium service and therefore doesn't command premium fares. Good luck selling that to the public.
And the whole point of the PPP is the tunnel aspect. Pages 33-35 (http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/ppp/images/sepulveda_pass_corridor_presentation.pdf) clearly indicate that it will be a tunnel configuration from LAX-Van Nuys Metrolink using automated, driverless technology. That means no at-grade portions.
And if it's private money, why does it matter if a significantly more expensive fully grade-separated line is built?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 5, 2014 22:10:22 GMT -8
Concept 6 is basically a express version of the current LAX Flyaway service. It's not really interesting to anyone but airport commuters. The ridership estimates also reflect this fact: Concept 6 is expected to have 58,000 total daily boardings in 2035, while Concept 5A is expected to have 90,000 total daily boardings. I'm almost tempted to call it a tunnel to nowhere, since its northern connection terminus will have no good public transit connections other than local buses. So after looking at Concept 5A, I updated my map accordingly. Unlike the heavy rail concept 5B, 5A offers the ability to add branch lines in the Valley and increase ridership; one such through service branch could connect Chatsworth to LAX via Canoga and Parthenia, incidentally connecting CSUN to UCLA in the process.Is there any reason why Concept 1 couldn't be built out along with Concept 5A? Concept 1 is the least expensive option and could offer through service via Sepulveda Boulevard while the 5A LRT is under construction... mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zFurjmU9jKtU.klfUZ9aJqrTIBecause this is a PPP, all tracks, stations, and maintenance facilities have to be separate. There's no point in having LRT just so you can interline/combine it with other lines. And people don't want to pay a premium fare for a sub-standard (euphemism for crappy) streetcar. That's not premium service. You do realize that HRT over LRT means a whopping difference of 16 minutes? That's a big deal. There are plenty of other potential LRT projects for the Valley. Not necessarily, because there could be a contract provision specification that requires the private entity to build the tunnel and transit guideway to the existing LRV vehicle tolerances. Remember most automated trains are about the same size and train length as our LRV's and with the Green Line, there is the potential for automation in the Sepulveda Pass section and operators elsewhere. One key piece about the 16 minute end-to-end travel time difference really won't make that much of a difference based on the demand and ridership forecasts where the bulk of the ridership is projected to be located between the Orange Line and Expo Line. And depending on where more of the grade separations are located. For example, per the preliminary travel times, if the corridor is fully grade separated let's say from the Orange Line station to LAX, the travel time savings for the end-to-end corridor travel time is reduced from 16 down to 7-8 minutes. Add a few passing tracks to enable "Express Service" then more travel time is saved. For a P3, it could be theoretically arranged so that the private sector pays for the increased infrastructure such as the passing/express tracks.
|
|
|
Post by Cyg2014 on Mar 5, 2014 22:26:53 GMT -8
Honestly, I think the hope that a private party would even be interested in either the highway or rail tunnels is a little far fetched. Even with premium fares, the amount of time it would take to recoup the construction costs of either tunnel is truly astronomical. The highway tunnel is projected at $10-13 billion. A LRT tunnel just from the Orange to Expo is projected at $6-7 billion. The full Valley to LAX train (which any private company is clearly going to want before agreeing) is over $14 billion. Even if Metro gifts the private party half the construction costs, $7 billion profit from a transport system with 4 stops? Good luck.
The problem also applies to the idea of building Concept 2 and then saving up for a Metro rail tunnel. Even if we assume that the 405 HOT lanes bring in TWICE what the 110/10 lanes bring in now, it would still take over 300 years to afford the rail runnel...
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 5, 2014 23:38:45 GMT -8
we don't need to worry about the 10B of the total right now. We just need to worry about the four station (orange line, ventura, ucla, purple line) phase one. Get through the choke point of the sepulveda pass, connect two rail lines and it's only 2 billion. Building out additional phases can happen later, the important thing is to get that four station phase one built. Not sure where you got $2B? It is going to be more like double that.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Mar 6, 2014 8:40:34 GMT -8
The problem also applies to the idea of building Concept 2 and then saving up for a Metro rail tunnel. Even if we assume that the 405 HOT lanes bring in TWICE what the 110/10 lanes bring in now, it would still take over 300 years to afford the rail runnel... Concept 2 honestly seems to have more flaws than Concept 1. Concept 1 will run in the right-hand shoulders of the roadway, will not require much additional infrastructure, and basically amounts to resurfacing and re-striping the 405 shoulders. Which is already happening thanks to the construction. Concept 2 requires building flyover ramps to the HOV lanes, then running the buses in mixed-flow with HOV traffic (which is already bogged down). It's basically a more expensive, more limited version of the service that we could get with Concept 1. The only flaw with Concept 1 is dealing with crossing traffic at onramps, but that could be handled by giving buses an override at the metering signals. Essentially, Concept 1 would be "proof of ridership" for a direct Sylmar-LAX line. It's inexpensive, it'll be faster than any current route to LAX, and it doubles as a rapidway for the LAX Flyaway to use. Of course there's no hope that it will pay for a LRT line - it only has to cover its own costs and prove the concept works. Then we can start working on LRT to supplement it.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 6, 2014 10:03:39 GMT -8
Honestly, I think the hope that a private party would even be interested in either the highway or rail tunnels is a little far fetched. Even with premium fares, the amount of time it would take to recoup the construction costs of either tunnel is truly astronomical. The highway tunnel is projected at $10-13 billion. A LRT tunnel just from the Orange to Expo is projected at $6-7 billion. The full Valley to LAX train (which any private company is clearly going to want before agreeing) is over $14 billion. Even if Metro gifts the private party half the construction costs, $7 billion profit from a transport system with 4 stops? Good luck. The problem also applies to the idea of building Concept 2 and then saving up for a Metro rail tunnel. Even if we assume that the 405 HOT lanes bring in TWICE what the 110/10 lanes bring in now, it would still take over 300 years to afford the rail runnel... It does seem amazing, but after hearing the presentation from Metro it seems as if there is huge interest. One thing is that the current HOT Lanes require free passage for carpools, which take up a lot of the capacity. These tunnels won't need to do that. Also, rail will have a premium pricing too, so with that you get higher income demographic and ability to make more money advertising and with other services vs. Metro's current low income demographic. Even better if they don't have to offer disabled, senior, and student discounts, which really hurt the bottom line and make current operations a huge drain on public coffers.
|
|