Q of the Week: BRT + HRT vs. at-grade LRT?

[regen]

There are indications that some planners may be thinking of the I-405 Corridor as HRT long term, with BRT on Van Nuys in the short term.

The reasons for this include:

1. Capacity: the I-405 Corridor transit project is likely to have high ridership, thus requiring a high capacity service.
2. Blockage: LRT vehicles are 87' long; with 300' blocks, you can have no more than 3 LRT cars before an intersection would be blocked.
3. Timing: none of the scoping or study of the I-405 Corridor transit project has begun yet, so it cannot be completed anytime soon anyway.
4. Incremental development: by getting BRT now, most likley as median bus lanes on Van Nuys Blvd., you can build the ridership for the long term project.
5. Cost: the operating cost of LRT per passenger can be significantly higher than HRT (but this can be due to different passenger levels).

Here are some of the potential disadvantages of that approach:

1. Cost: HRT has to be fully-graded separated.
2. Delivery: because of the cost, HRT on Van Nuys Blvd. would become a post-Measure R project.
3. Loss of network effect: until the HRT could be built, it would be unlikely to attract passengers from Metrolink to transfer to BRT to transfer to HRT.

If we wanted to make LRT work on this corridor, here are some of the attributes it would require:

1. Speed: LRT would need to be faster than driving, no stops except at stations.
2. Capacity: LRT would need to have more than 3-car trainsets, perhaps as many as the subway (6 cars at peak)
3. Coverage: LRT would need to cover the whole corridor, not just the Sepulveda Pass, to get the full network effect from connecting lines.
4. Cost: minimize both the construction cost and operating cost (more passengers/train) to be competitive enough to get a large federal match.

In order to achieve these attributes, the following characteristics would be needed:

1. Avoiding grade separation: travel at-grade as much as physically possible to minimize cost.
2. Absolute signal priority: the LRT vehicle should be able to pass through every intersection without slowing or stopping.
3. Modified intersections at stations: where intersections are only 300' apart, the first intersection after the arterial in the direction of the station would need to be permanently modified to prevent through traffic. For example, at the Orange Line, if the station platform extended from Bessemer to Delano, through traffic on Calvert would be blocked; only right turns would be allowed.

Fortunately, there are very few intersections that would need to be modified: the only location other than the Orange Line would be Victory, and given the likely location of the Orange Line station just 4 blocks south of Victory, a station there might not even be necessary.

So would you prefer BRT in 3 years + partial HRT in 10 years + full HRT someday or full at-grade LRT with absolute intersection priority in 10 years?

[JerardWright]

My comments are in Red

Mar 7, 2011 11:48:09 GMT -8 regen said:

There are indications that some planners may be thinking of the I-405 Corridor as HRT long term, with BRT on Van Nuys in the short term.

The reasons for this include:

1. Capacity: the I-405 Corridor transit project is likely to have high ridership, thus requiring a high capacity service.
2. Blockage: LRT vehicles are 87' long; with 300' blocks, you can have no more than 3 LRT cars before an intersection would be blocked.
3. Timing: none of the scoping or study of the I-405 Corridor transit project has begun yet, so it cannot be completed anytime soon anyway.
4. Incremental development: by getting BRT now, most likley as median bus lanes on Van Nuys Blvd., you can build the ridership for the long term project.
5. Cost: the operating cost of LRT per passenger can be significantly higher than HRT (but this can be due to different passenger levels).

Here are some of the potential disadvantages of that approach:

1. Cost: HRT has to be fully-graded separated.
2. Delivery: because of the cost, HRT on Van Nuys Blvd. would become a post-Measure R project.
3. Loss of network effect: until the HRT could be built, it would be unlikely to attract passengers from Metrolink to transfer to BRT to transfer to HRT.
4. No location for a Maintenance Facility based on Straight Van Nuys-UCLA corridor

If we wanted to make LRT work on this corridor, here are some of the attributes it would require:

1. Speed: LRT would need to be faster than driving, no stops except at stations.
2. Capacity: LRT would need to have more than 3-car trainsets, perhaps as many as the subway (6 cars at peak)
4 or 5 Car LRV per train will give you the exact capacity as the 6 car HRT on the Red Line.
3. Coverage: LRT would need to cover the whole corridor, not just the Sepulveda Pass, to get the full network effect from connecting lines.
Same problem or worse for HRT there's a reason theres a HEAVY in the term Heavy rail because you need heavy ridership to have it pan out/cost-effective.
4. Cost: minimize both the construction cost and operating cost (more passengers/train) to be competitive enough to get a large federal match.
Routing alignment will do more to do that, from going away from Ventura/Van Nuys to Ventura/Sepulveda and utilizing a portion of the Orange Line ROW to do three important things;
a) Increase ridership in the corridor making it more likely to obtain the Federal 50% match so you can extend the corridor farther into the Valley
b) Locate a spot for a small maintenance shop/storage for the rail cars
c) Begin the visioning of upgrading the Orange Line from Bus to Rail.

In order to achieve these attributes, the following characteristics would be needed:

1. Avoiding grade separation: travel at-grade as much as physically possible to minimize cost.
2. Absolute signal priority: the LRT vehicle should be able to pass through every intersection without slowing or stopping.
3. Modified intersections at stations: where intersections are only 300' apart, the first intersection after the arterial in the direction of the station would need to be permanently modified to prevent through traffic. For example, at the Orange Line, if the station platform extended from Bessemer to Delano, through traffic on Calvert would be blocked; only right turns would be allowed.

Fortunately, there are very few intersections that would need to be modified: the only location other than the Orange Line would be Victory, and given the likely location of the Orange Line station just 4 blocks south of Victory, a station there might not even be necessary.

So would you prefer BRT in 3 years + partial HRT in 10 years + full HRT someday or full at-grade LRT with absolute intersection priority in 10 years?

[regen]

Mar 7, 2011 20:13:31 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

My comments are in Red

Mar 7, 2011 11:48:09 GMT -8 regen said:

3. Loss of network effect: until the HRT could be built, it would be unlikely to attract passengers from Metrolink to transfer to BRT to transfer to HRT.
4. No location for a Maintenance Facility based on Straight Van Nuys-UCLA corridor

4. Cost: minimize both the construction cost and operating cost (more passengers/train) to be competitive enough to get a large federal match.
Routing alignment will do more to do that, from going away from Ventura/Van Nuys to Ventura/Sepulveda and utilizing a portion of the Orange Line ROW to do three important things;
a) Increase ridership in the corridor making it more likely to obtain the Federal 50% match so you can extend the corridor farther into the Valley
b) Locate a spot for a small maintenance shop/storage for the rail cars
c) Begin the visioning of upgrading the Orange Line from Bus to Rail.

Regarding the maintenance facility, HRT could piggyback off the Purple Line if the Westwood Station is built as a flyover; LRT could do the same if there's a connection to Expo.

Regarding the alignment, you may have come up with our next Question of the Week!

[Dan Wentzel]

Mar 7, 2011 11:48:09 GMT -8 regen said:

So would you prefer BRT in 3 years + partial HRT in 10 years + full HRT someday or full at-grade LRT with absolute intersection priority in 10 years?

The latter, because I don't believe partial HRT will be coming for any other line other than a possible extension of the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica 4th Street.

If we want rail on this corridor, I believe we need to unite behind LRT between LAX and Sylmar.

[metrocenter]

No need for HRT. Costs more, requires new HRT facilities, and is not needed for capacity. Metro can design the central stations (Westwood to Ventura or the Orange Line) to accommodate long trains.

I say LRT all the way. If need be, go BRT and then upgrade to LRT. Not sure why that option isn't in your poll, regen.

[JerardWright]

Mar 8, 2011 0:53:35 GMT -8 regen said:

Mar 7, 2011 20:13:31 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

My comments are in Red

Regarding the maintenance facility, HRT could piggyback off the Purple Line if the Westwood Station is built as a flyover; LRT could do the same if there's a connection to Expo.

Regarding the alignment, you may have come up with our next Question of the Week!

They could very well do that in both cases however more importantly the Red/Purple Line HRT trains that will require a lot more space for a maintenance facility in Downtown more than even the current expansion will require.

[carter]

I think when evaluating what will work best in the Valley-to-Westside corridor, it will be interesting and informative to see how well the fully built out Expo Lines does, as it will be the first rail line on the Westside, well, in my lifetime.

There's good reason to be optimistic about high ridership on Expo. And the stronger it actually is, the stronger the case you can make for a more expensive, higher capacity upfront transit investment in the 405 corridor.

By the time Metro actually breaks ground on this, Expo will have been up and running for several years, whereas the Wilshire subway may just be up and running, or only operable partially.

Anyways, this is all somewhat stating the obvious, but the point is I think Expo is going to have some valuable lessons to give about the viability of rail on the Westside, especially considering both would parallel major travel/freeway corridors.

[tonyw79sfv]

Let's remember that Metro got the money to study Van Nuys; the Sepulveda Pass at this point is both unfunded and unstudied (although the folks at TTC done more studying on it than Metro). Metro may not even go with BRT, as there's that elusive "no build" option or even some kind of transportation mitigation option. Metro may study it and it may end up shelved in the Metro Library like the Red Line extension study (1989) that was suppose to bring HRT to the current Sepulveda Station.

But pessimism aside, I'm more optimistic that there will be support for rail, already sorely needed for the Sepulveda Pass, but also in the East San Fernando Valley, where ridership already exists; those riders shouldn't settle for buses and choice riders will have an option outside single car occupancy.

I do believe that just the Pass would qualify for HRT, but BRT + HRT doesn't help reach a wider ridership base if a transfer from unequal capacity modes are setup - just look at the current Orange and Red Line interchange at North Hollywood. During the rush hour it's OK with 2.5 Orange Line buses for 1 Red Line trainset; however in the late evening/nights, it's one Orange Line bus for one Red Line train every 20 minutes. Allowing for one seat travel from deeper in the Valley to the Westside would make the potential Van Nuys/Sepulveda Pass line more productive and enticing to choice riders. It's also less stress to the disabled and more capacity to carry bicycles on board. The best compromise to achieving that would be LRT - at-grade on Van Nuys Boulevard and bored tunnels from Sherman Oaks to Westwood.

[jeisenbe]

There are 2 real advantaged to HRT versus LRT:
1) HRT can be automated, due to being fully grade-separated. This can lower operating costs, especially off-peak (at night and on weekends).
2) HRT can be higher capacity with long trains. This requires 8 or 10 car trains
Neither of these advantages are currently used in Los Angeles.

LRT has 1 huge advantage:
1) Can be built with grade crossings, greatly lowering costs (in the Vally and south of Santa Monica Blvd, in this case)

In this corridor, the theoretically higher capacity of HRT will not be needed. The 405 freeway can only carry 10,000 single-occupancy cars per hour per direction (with 4 lanes) and perhaps another 5000 in carpools. LRT with our current 3-car trains running every 2 minutes can carry 600 x 30 = 18,000 people per hour per direction, more than the entire freeway (including the new, 1 billion dollar, carpool lane northbound). And some places use up to 6 car LRT trains, which actually have higher capacity than many HRT trains (including those currently used in LA).

Automation, full grade separation and higher capacity would be nice, but are not worth the costs on this corridor, which is mainly thru moderate-density suburbs (with the exception of West LA). Instead, let's get it built as far north and south as possible, with LRT largely at-grade (with gated crossings, to allow 55 mph speed between stations).

Re: routing; I would recommend following the former Pacific Electric right-of-way in the valley, which has a very wide median just begging for rail (and its wide enough for fences and gates at intersections). Go north on Van Nuys, West on Parthenia, north on Sepulveda, and finally north-east on Brand to San Fernando.

In West LA, the route will need to be a subway until Santa Monica Blvd, and then can be between Sepulveda and the 405 freeway, south to the Harbor Subdivision right-of-way, which it can take to the Century/Aviation (LAX) station.

[regen]

Mar 8, 2011 13:20:25 GMT -8 carter said:

I think when evaluating what will work best in the Valley-to-Westside corridor, it will be interesting and informative to see how well the fully built out Expo Lines does, as it will be the first rail line on the Westside, well, in my lifetime....

By the time Metro actually breaks ground on this, Expo will have been up and running for several years, whereas the Wilshire subway may just be up and running, or only operable partially.

Expo Phase 1 may be up and running before the Alternatives Analysis for the Valley segment is completed, and before Metro even begins the Sepulveda Pass segment scoping process. It is virtually certain that Expo Phase 2 would be done before the Sepulveda Pass segment would break ground.

[carter]

Mar 9, 2011 2:27:34 GMT -8 regen said:

Mar 8, 2011 13:20:25 GMT -8 carter said:

I think when evaluating what will work best in the Valley-to-Westside corridor, it will be interesting and informative to see how well the fully built out Expo Lines does, as it will be the first rail line on the Westside, well, in my lifetime....

By the time Metro actually breaks ground on this, Expo will have been up and running for several years, whereas the Wilshire subway may just be up and running, or only operable partially.

Expo Phase 1 may be up and running before the Alternatives Analysis for the Valley segment is completed, and before Metro even begins the Sepulveda Pass segment scoping process. It is virtually certain that Expo Phase 2 would be done before the Sepulveda Pass segment would break ground.

That's what I figured, but I wasn't 100% on the timing of everything.

To follow up on my point, LA Weekly has a blog post on a study showing that the 405 in West LA is the 3rd busiest freeway corridor in the nation.

blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/los_angeles_traffic_congestion.php

[matthewb]

Mar 8, 2011 10:35:55 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

I say LRT all the way. If need be, go BRT and then upgrade to LRT. Not sure why that option isn't in your poll, regen.

BRT to LRT, like the Orange line? When has that ever worked?

[metrocenter]

Mar 9, 2011 15:33:01 GMT -8 matthewb said:

Mar 8, 2011 10:35:55 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

I say LRT all the way. If need be, go BRT and then upgrade to LRT. Not sure why that option isn't in your poll, regen.

BRT to LRT, like the Orange line? When has that ever worked?

Well by that token, when has BRT ever been converted to HRT?

I'd rather see it built as LRT the first time. My comment was to point out that regen's poll was forcing a false choice by leaving out other possible options.

Actually, the full range of reasonable options is:

• Option 1: HRT for Pass and Valley, now and forever
  
• Option 2: LRT for Pass and Valley, with both later converted to HRT
  
• Option 3: LRT for Pass and Valley, with Pass only later converted to HRT
  
• Option 4: LRT for Pass and Valley, now and forever
  
• Option 5: LRT for Pass and BRT for Valley, with Valley later converted to LRT
  
• Option 6: BRT for Pass and LRT for Valley, with Pass later converted to LRT
  
• Option 7: BRT for Pass and Valley, with both later converted to HRT
  
• Option 8: BRT for Pass and Valley, with both later converted to LRT
  
• Option 9: BRT for Pass and Valley, with Pass only later converted to LRT
  
• Option 10: BRT for Pass and Valley, with Pass only later converted to HRT
  
• Option 11: BRT for Pass and Valley, now and forever

(If I have left any out, please let me know.)

From my perspective, HRT along Van Nuys Blvd is not likely. HRT must be grade-separated, and that costs $$$$. Metro doesn't have that kind of money, and even if it did, it has higher priorities. This eliminates the Options 1, 2 and 7.

When the whole corridor is built out, I think it was pretty unanimous here that we want a single-mode unified corridor between the Pass and the Valley. This eliminates Options 3, 9 and 10, which would all end up with a disjointed corridor.

This leaves only five options:

• Option 4: LRT for Pass and Valley, now and forever
  
• Option 5: LRT for Pass and BRT for Valley, with Valley later converted to LRT
  
• Option 6: BRT for Pass and LRT for Valley, with Pass later converted to LRT
  
• Option 8: BRT for Pass and Valley, with both later converted to LRT
  
• Option 11: BRT for Pass and Valley, now and forever

For me, Option 4 is the best option. Built the entire thing as LRT, once and for all.

[masonite]

Option #4 is certainly the best option, and I would fully support that. However, I have to agree with others that there is no where near enough Measure R money for this, especially in the Valley section where only $100M was allocated.

If the funding issue can be solved, then by all means. This makes other Measure R projects seem like such a waste when put up against this. Can you say Eastside Gold Line Extension #2. Either that or how nice would it be to be able to spend 710 project money as we like. That would solve a lot of problems.

[regen]

Mar 9, 2011 15:48:15 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

I'd rather see it built as LRT the first time. My comment was to point out that regen's poll was forcing a false choice by leaving out other possible options.

Since you raised a worthwhile question, here is some more background.

The choice was based on several factors:

1. Previous polls on this bulletin board indicated strong support for having the corridor studied together as a whole, rather than as separate parts.

2. Metro is publicly talking about the Valley segment as BRT.

3. As you indicated, HRT for the full corridor would be far too expensive.

4. Most respondents on this board have indicated preference for either LRT or HRT over BRT for the Sepulveda Pass at a minimum.

5. The Transit Coalition is envisioning LRT for the full corridor; since some may ask, "Why not HRT?," we are trying to get a sense of how strongly people feel HRT in the Sepulveda Pass would be preferable, even if it required that the rest of the corridor be BRT for now.

6. We wanted a clear comparison; we could do a brainstorm of all possible mode combinations, or all fundable mode combinations for a future poll, but then we would have to decide whether to allow multiple votes per person, or accept that the top choices of various people might get split among a lot of different options.

In terms of cost and funding sources, feel free to check out the previous thread:
transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=valleywestsiderailtunnel&action=display&thread=1010

[LAofAnaheim]

Mar 9, 2011 16:53:31 GMT -8 masonite said:

Option #4 is certainly the best option, and I would fully support that. However, I have to agree with others that there is no where near enough Measure R money for this, especially in the Valley section where only $100M was allocated.

If the funding issue can be solved, then by all means. This makes other Measure R projects seem like such a waste when put up against this. Can you say Eastside Gold Line Extension #2. Either that or how nice would it be to be able to spend 710 project money as we like. That would solve a lot of problems.

$100 million will not get us far, but $1 billion could probably cover a significant portion of the project and maybe qualify for New Starts?? Isn't that the discussion here, combining the SFV Valley and Van Nuys corridor? Well, isn't $100 million allocated to the SFV for busways and $1 billion already alocated for a transit project from the westside to the valley? So why only $100 million?

[masonite]

Mar 9, 2011 18:03:51 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

Mar 9, 2011 16:53:31 GMT -8 masonite said:

Option #4 is certainly the best option, and I would fully support that. However, I have to agree with others that there is no where near enough Measure R money for this, especially in the Valley section where only $100M was allocated.

If the funding issue can be solved, then by all means. This makes other Measure R projects seem like such a waste when put up against this. Can you say Eastside Gold Line Extension #2. Either that or how nice would it be to be able to spend 710 project money as we like. That would solve a lot of problems.

$100 million will not get us far, but $1 billion could probably cover a significant portion of the project and maybe qualify for New Starts?? Isn't that the discussion here, combining the SFV Valley and Van Nuys corridor? Well, isn't $100 million allocated to the SFV for busways and $1 billion already alocated for a transit project from the westside to the valley? So why only $100 million?

Just to do the Orange Line to Westwood section is going to cost more than $1B if not $2B, which means New Starts money will be needed for this section (if you are talking about at least 2-3 underground stations, a maintenance facility and such which are going to be necessary). That will leave $100M plus if there is anything left over from the earlier section (which there very well could not be) to do the entire section from Orange Line to Sylmar. That just isn't realistic no matter how much we want a light rail line from Westwood to Sylmar. Also, I didn't even mention taking the line from Westwood to the Expo Line, which is going to cost a whole bunch more.

I am fine with doing the study of both projects at the same time. I wouldn't want to endanger the Valley to Westwood project though, which is by far the bigger trip generator.

[JerardWright]

Mar 8, 2011 23:42:01 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

There are 2 real advantaged to HRT versus LRT:
1) HRT can be automated, due to being fully grade-separated. This can lower operating costs, especially off-peak (at night and on weekends).
2) HRT can be higher capacity with long trains. This requires 8 or 10 car trains
Neither of these advantages are currently used in Los Angeles.

LRT has 1 huge advantage:
1) Can be built with grade crossings, greatly lowering costs (in the Vally and south of Santa Monica Blvd, in this case)

A point of clarification, LRT can also be automated in sections of grade separation. The Green Line flirted with this option in the mid 90's and San Francisco's Muni Metro tunnel is set for automated operation when the time is right. There's also the Docklands Rail in London that are essentially light rail vehicles automated on a grade separated corridor.

LRV's on the grade separated alignment can also be trained to longer units, Edmonton and Calgary's specifications and right-of-way provisions can enable their LRV's to run in longer 5 car units which will give you the same length as our 6 car and some cities 8/10 car trains.