Sepulveda mode now that ESFV is definitively LRT

[brady12]

With Metro having approved the plan for the ESFV which in my opinion was off base for a few reasons:

The idea to make the ESFV corridor as from the Orange line to Sylmar instead of Van Nuys ML to Sylmar was wrong. I get why but if you insisted on ESFV being LRT, they should have made the Sepulveda cooridor go all the way to Van Nuys ML.

The idea to make it LRT instead of HRT was wrong. I know this was done because the corridor isn’t quite dense enough for HRT - ON ITS OWN, But when you consider the traffic coming to and from the west side .. i think it can handle it.

The idea to eliminate the Subway portion was wrong, I know it was because they said it was a $1.2B cost that saved only a couple minutes.!

ANYWAY, with all that being said - it’s pretty set in stone that they’re going with LRT, on Van Nuys, from OL to Sylmar. Maybe some stations get eliminated and maybe some neighborhood advocacy and last minute funding gets some of it put underground or aerial or something but the route and mode is set in stone.

A big concern for people when planning this line was how it would interact with the Sepulveda Line. At the same time many many people said Sepulveda is one of the few cooridors being planned for rapid transit in the NEAR future, that has the capacity to warrant HRT

My question is - what does everyone think the Sepulveda corridor should be? HRT with a transfer at the Orange Line to Van Nuys LRT, or should it be LRT Subway so it makes one long cohesive line from Sylmar to LAX/Stadium?

It all comes down to what’s more important MODE or Transfers?

[TransportationZ]

Aug 5, 2018 9:36:35 GMT -8 brady12 said:

With Metro having approved the plan for the ESFV which in my opinion was off base for a few reasons:

The idea to make the ESFV corridor as from the Orange line to Sylmar instead of Van Nuys ML to Sylmar was wrong. I get why but if you insisted on ESFV being LRT, they should have made the Sepulveda cooridor go all the way to Van Nuys ML.

The idea to make it LRT instead of HRT was wrong. I know this was done because the corridor isn’t quite dense enough for HRT - ON ITS OWN, But when you consider the traffic coming to and from the west side .. i think it can handle it.

The idea to eliminate the Subway portion was wrong, I know it was because they said it was a $1.2B cost that saved only a couple minutes.!

ANYWAY, with all that being said - it’s pretty set in stone that they’re going with LRT, on Van Nuys, from OL to Sylmar. Maybe some stations get eliminated and maybe some neighborhood advocacy and last minute funding gets some of it put underground or aerial or something but the route and mode is set in stone.

A big concern for people when planning this line was how it would interact with the Sepulveda Line. At the same time many many people said Sepulveda is one of the few cooridors being planned for rapid transit in the NEAR future, that has the capacity to warrant HRT

My question is - what does everyone think the Sepulveda corridor should be? HRT with a transfer at the Orange Line to Van Nuys LRT, or should it be LRT Subway so it makes one long cohesive line from Sylmar to LAX/Stadium?

It all comes down to what’s more important MODE or Transfers?

Pretty much has to be LRT now so we can have one continuous line all the way to the 96th Street APM station.

I think the best compromise for the corridor would be to start using 4-car light rail trains, as seen in places like Seattle. I think LRT will work, it just needs to be done properly.

With that said, looking at the complete picture, I think Metro's biggest blunder with this line was treating ESFV and Sepulveda Pass as separate. Anyone could've seen that these two projects were eventually going to be one line. And I mean anyone.

Although I guess the argument could be made that Metro was also considering a combined highway/rail tunnel for Sepulveda Pass, but still.

[exporider]

They should both be LRT and they should be designed to accommodate a continuous alignment. Ridership demand and density anywhere along the combined alignment aren't high enough to warrant HRT.
Of course, that's my pragmatic voice speaking. If we had unlimited funds, and the political will to develop a subway system to serve the entire region, like they have in dozens of other cities around the world, I'd have no problem making these HRT.

[darrell]

Aug 6, 2018 6:56:20 GMT -8 TransportationZ said:

I think the best compromise for the corridor would be to start using 4-car light rail trains, as seen in places like Seattle. I think LRT will work, it just needs to be done properly.

I especially like Metro's Sepulveda Corridor Concept 4, that would have LRT branch both north on Van Nuys Blvd. and west on the Orange Line. Especially if extending farther west than Sepulveda it would feed a lot of passengers into the main Sepulveda corridor and spread high-frequency trains into lower-frequency branches, same as the Regional Connector will.

I did some quick math and found 4-car light rail trains every 3 minutes on the trunk would approximately double the existing I-405 southbound capacity! Therefore heavy rail 6-car trains that would carry ~50% more are not needed.

100 passengers/car * 4 cars/train * 20 trains/hour = 8,000 passengers/hour
1,500 passengers/lane/hour * 5 lanes = 7,500 passengers/hour

[bzcat]

I don't have any faith that Metro can design a proper transfer station. So I vote light rail so at least some people won't have to transfer.

And I really believe Metro should look at using open gangway, and minimum of 4 or 5 cars. Like the kind of light rail train sets that Shanghai Metro uses.

The vast majority of Shanghai Metro system uses canternary wires and "narrow" non-standard size metro trains. Basically the system is very similar to LA Metro light rail. Except the Shanghai trains are a lot longer than the LA ones with open gangway and bench seats on the side to pack in more people.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 5, 2018 9:36:35 GMT -8 brady12 said:

With Metro having approved the plan for the ESFV which in my opinion was off base for a few reasons:

The idea to make the ESFV corridor as from the Orange line to Sylmar instead of Van Nuys ML to Sylmar was wrong. I get why but if you insisted on ESFV being LRT, they should have made the Sepulveda cooridor go all the way to Van Nuys ML.

Metrolink gets 3,800 passengers per day on the Ventura line, the Orange line has 24,000 passengers per day. When studying the ESFV, it would be insane to terminate the ESFV at metrolink instead of at the Orange Line. Just completely insane.

Your reason would be that the Sepulveda pass project ought to terminate at the Metrolink line, but the money that got the ESFV to this point all came from MEasure R, the money that is making the Sepulveda pass project possible all came from Measure M. so the ESFV has an eight year head start.

The idea to make it LRT instead of HRT was wrong. I know this was done because the corridor isn’t quite dense enough for HRT - ON ITS OWN, But when you consider the traffic coming to and from the west side .. i think it can handle it.

"I think" isn't a good enough reason when we're spending billions of dollars. Getting past "I think" to actual facts backed by data is why we spend millions on ridership projections and studies that take years to figure out. LRT is appropriate for this corridor and although it is not a central business district line, it should still outperform some of the CBD lines like the two Gold Lines.

This line is actually also well suited to BRT, not HRT, which means your instincts are exactly in the wrong direction, according to all the facts and data and analysis.

The idea to eliminate the Subway portion was wrong, I know it was because they said it was a $1.2B cost that saved only a couple minutes.!

This is actually the best decision metro made. Eliminating the subway saves 1.2B, and in saving that amount, the project is now fully funded. At a savings of two minutes per trip, an expenditure of 1.2 billion to achieve those savings is NOT cost effective, no matter how you measure it nor amortize it over decades.

In addition to now being fully funded, the project will also be finished three-five years sooner, because subterranean construction is the longest possible construction to undertake.

More importantly, the community itself supported at grade and did not like the subway section. They wanted it gone because it was expensive, unnecessary, ineffective, and delayed the construction schedule by years and years. In other words, they hated it.

ANYWAY, with all that being said - it’s pretty set in stone that they’re going with LRT, on Van Nuys, from OL to Sylmar. Maybe some stations get eliminated and maybe some neighborhood advocacy and last minute funding gets some of it put underground or aerial or something but the route and mode is set in stone.

Agreed. I would expect maybe one aerial station, and maybe one station eliminated, but I think this is pretty much set in stone.

A big concern for people when planning this line was how it would interact with the Sepulveda Line. At the same time many many people said Sepulveda is one of the few cooridors being planned for rapid transit in the NEAR future, that has the capacity to warrant HRT

Sepulveda does have the capacity to warrant HRT. but it is extraordinarily hard to model ridership on any rail line through the sepulveda pass because the mountains are such a barrier that all the local transit services are segregated from each other, they more or less don't interact. All we really know is that a relatively small number of people use a bus option through the pass, and 25,000 people per direction per hour use the pass in single occupancy vehicles.

What is HRT? our current Red/Purple HRT has 6 car trains carrying 180 people each for a capacity of 1080 people per train, at a train every two minutes (30 trains per hour) this is a theoretical capacity of 32,000 people per hour. That is more than enough to provide service for every person using an automobile on the pass.

And trains through the sepulveda tunnels will be running at approximately 2-3 minute headways simply because a tunnel this expensive needs to be used as much as possible to make the costs worth it. We will almost certainly have branched service (ESFV remains at 5 minute peak headways, and an Orange Line Rail conversion has alternating headways for a combined tunnel headway of every 2.5 minutes).

Will LRT be enough? At 400 ppl per 3 car ESFV train, and a train every 5 minutes, that is a capacity of 4,800 people per hour. If we have trains every 2.5 minutes (branched service) that is 9,600 people per hour. If the orange line branched service is 4 car LRT trainsets, not 3 car, that would increase the theoretical capacity to 11,200 people per hour.

at 11,000 people per hour, we're at about 45% of the total number of people driving in Single Occupancy Vehicles on the 405.

That level of coverage is probably sufficient for the corridor.

And remember there is basically non-existant transit service through the mountain range, the only people traversing the mountains are in cars, so we don't really know what will happen as well as we do on most lines.

There is a fair amount of evidence that there is a lot of latent (unmet) demand in the Sepulveda Pass that will provide ridership. Virtually all of the bus line users will stop using the bus and will opt for the train and that will provide ridership. More Ventura County and Antelope Valley commuters might use Metrolink that currently do not and will opt for the train and that will provide ridership.  Probably no VC or AV commuters currently using Metrolink are going through the sepulveda pass so current commuters are not a source of ridership. People leaving their cars will provide ridership.

It's definitely a slam dunk, but does it require HRT? That's less of a slam dunk, and my instincts used to be that it required HRT as well, but the more data I looked at, the more I realized my instincts were not accurate.  We are proposing a rail line traversing a mountain range with up to 30 trains per hour running at peak, a mountain range that acts as an incredibly strong natural barrier limiting peoples movements through that mountain range. The best point of comparison we probably have is the Trans bay tunnel in BART, but I think that is an even stronger natural barrier. BUT the big, gigantic difference is that the proposed Sepulveda Pass does not go to the Central Business District, the Trans Bay Tunnel does. And fundamentally, globally, the rule is that lines that do not go to the CBD will never have ridership as high as lines that do.

My question is - what does everyone think the Sepulveda corridor should be? HRT with a transfer at the Orange Line to Van Nuys LRT, or should it be LRT Subway so it makes one long cohesive line from Sylmar to LAX/Stadium?

HRT is probably overbuilding capacity and would force a transfer from the LRT service which would depress ridership.

I think the line should terminate at the purple line, so it would be Sylmar to Westwood, LRT. I think they should turn the Purple line south from it's current VA terminus and have the purple line go to LAX/Aviation People would then transfer at Wilshire Westwood to get to the airport. But people would also be transferring at Wilshire Westwood to get to Downtown. Or to Get to Century City. Or to get to Beverly Hills.

This would create a double transfer to get to downtown santa monica or to get to culver city, but I don't think that's too much of a sacrifice.

If the purple line ran from LAX, through the westside, through the Century City and Beverly Hills Business district and through the LA CBD it would be one of the top performing HRT lines in the country, possibly out performing some of the NYC lines.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 6, 2018 10:45:22 GMT -8 darrell said:

Aug 6, 2018 6:56:20 GMT -8 TransportationZ said:

I think the best compromise for the corridor would be to start using 4-car light rail trains, as seen in places like Seattle. I think LRT will work, it just needs to be done properly.

I especially like Metro's Sepulveda Corridor Concept 4, that would have LRT branch both north on Van Nuys Blvd. and west on the Orange Line. Especially if extending farther west than Sepulveda it would feed a lot of passengers into the main Sepulveda corridor and spread high-frequency trains into lower-frequency branches, same as the Regional Connector will.

I did some quick math and found 4-car light rail trains every 3 minutes on the trunk would approximately double the existing I-405 southbound capacity! Therefore heavy rail 6-car trains that would carry ~50% more are not needed.

100 passengers/car * 4 cars/train * 20 trains/hour = 8,000 passengers/hour
1,500 passengers/lane/hour * 5 lanes = 7,500 passengers/hour

I also prefer the option four with branched service. Trains every 2.5 minutes (headways on the ESFV are limited to every five minutes) through the tunnel is the only way to make the investment make financial sense.

but the capacity of Metro's LRT fleet is 400 ppl per three car train, or roughly 540 per 4 car train, so that's throwing off your math. Also, since the headway on the ESFV is every five minutes, the headway for branched service would naturally be every 2.5 minutes or 24 Trains per hour.

The ESFV is currently being designed for 3 car station platforms, not 4 car station platforms. I measured on google maps, and there is probably room for 4 car station platforms at _Every_ proposed station, EXCEPT for one, I think at Victory (it's the second or third station north of the Orange line), so it could still change, but we'd either lose a station, or have to make a station aerial to make 4 car station platforms possible for the line.

Vehicle lanes carry 1700 vehicles per lane per hour, and there are six lanes in the pass, not 5 and you have to multiply the vehicles by a passenger factor of 1.2 people per vehicle, so the 405 is carrying 12,500 people per hour per direction

(my previous post said 25,000 people because I was misremembering when I last computed the capacity but was calculating for total capacity not directional capacity)

[darrell]

We generally agree, but let me say more about my numbers. I use a round 100 people/rail car -- all seats filled + 25-30 standees -- as a typical commute load that I witness. True, they could squeeze in more, and get down to 2.5 minute headways, but the latter would be challenging with a stub-end station at Expo.

I use less than 1,500 cars/lane/hour for congested freeway flow, documented both by personal car-counting and papers based on the Santa Monica Freeway's loop detectors. Multiply by 1.2 to get around 1,500 people/lane/hour.

The narrowest point of I-405 becomes its choke point, south of Skirball Center Drive. Northbound there the 405 has 5 mixed-flow lanes + 1 HOV; southbound is one less, 4 mixed-flow lanes + 1 HOV (NO southbound capacity was added there during the $1 billion + widening). Metro apparently plans to replace the single HOV lanes with dual Express Lanes, although that will require widening southbound south of Skirball.

Regarding 4-car platforms on Van Nuys Blvd., I asked that question before Metro's Planning and Programming Committee, John Fasana relayed it to staff, who said that the design was compatible with extending platforms to four cars.

[brady12]

Aug 6, 2018 11:41:11 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Aug 5, 2018 9:36:35 GMT -8 brady12 said:

With Metro having approved the plan for the ESFV which in my opinion was off base for a few reasons:

The idea to make the ESFV corridor as from the Orange line to Sylmar instead of Van Nuys ML to Sylmar was wrong. I get why but if you insisted on ESFV being LRT, they should have made the Sepulveda cooridor go all the way to Van Nuys ML.

Metrolink gets 3,800 passengers per day on the Ventura line, the Orange line has 24,000 passengers per day. When studying the ESFV, it would be insane to terminate the ESFV at metrolink instead of at the Orange Line. Just completely insane.

Your reason would be that the Sepulveda pass project ought to terminate at the Metrolink line, but the money that got the ESFV to this point all came from MEasure R, the money that is making the Sepulveda pass project possible all came from Measure M. so the ESFV has an eight year head start.

The idea to make it LRT instead of HRT was wrong. I know this was done because the corridor isn’t quite dense enough for HRT - ON ITS OWN, But when you consider the traffic coming to and from the west side .. i think it can handle it.

"I think" isn't a good enough reason when we're spending billions of dollars. Getting past "I think" to actual facts backed by data is why we spend millions on ridership projections and studies that take years to figure out. LRT is appropriate for this corridor and although it is not a central business district line, it should still outperform some of the CBD lines like the two Gold Lines.

This line is actually also well suited to BRT, not HRT, which means your instincts are exactly in the wrong direction, according to all the facts and data and analysis.

The idea to eliminate the Subway portion was wrong, I know it was because they said it was a $1.2B cost that saved only a couple minutes.!

This is actually the best decision metro made. Eliminating the subway saves 1.2B, and in saving that amount, the project is now fully funded. At a savings of two minutes per trip, an expenditure of 1.2 billion to achieve those savings is NOT cost effective, no matter how you measure it nor amortize it over decades.

In addition to now being fully funded, the project will also be finished three-five years sooner, because subterranean construction is the longest possible construction to undertake.

More importantly, the community itself supported at grade and did not like the subway section. They wanted it gone because it was expensive, unnecessary, ineffective, and delayed the construction schedule by years and years. In other words, they hated it.

ANYWAY, with all that being said - it’s pretty set in stone that they’re going with LRT, on Van Nuys, from OL to Sylmar. Maybe some stations get eliminated and maybe some neighborhood advocacy and last minute funding gets some of it put underground or aerial or something but the route and mode is set in stone.

Agreed. I would expect maybe one aerial station, and maybe one station eliminated, but I think this is pretty much set in stone.

A big concern for people when planning this line was how it would interact with the Sepulveda Line. At the same time many many people said Sepulveda is one of the few cooridors being planned for rapid transit in the NEAR future, that has the capacity to warrant HRT

Sepulveda does have the capacity to warrant HRT. but it is extraordinarily hard to model ridership on any rail line through the sepulveda pass because the mountains are such a barrier that all the local transit services are segregated from each other, they more or less don't interact. All we really know is that a relatively small number of people use a bus option through the pass, and 25,000 people per direction per hour use the pass in single occupancy vehicles.

What is HRT? our current Red/Purple HRT has 6 car trains carrying 180 people each for a capacity of 1080 people per train, at a train every two minutes (30 trains per hour) this is a theoretical capacity of 32,000 people per hour. That is more than enough to provide service for every person using an automobile on the pass.

And trains through the sepulveda tunnels will be running at approximately 2-3 minute headways simply because a tunnel this expensive needs to be used as much as possible to make the costs worth it. We will almost certainly have branched service (ESFV remains at 5 minute peak headways, and an Orange Line Rail conversion has alternating headways for a combined tunnel headway of every 2.5 minutes).

Will LRT be enough? At 400 ppl per 3 car ESFV train, and a train every 5 minutes, that is a capacity of 4,800 people per hour. If we have trains every 2.5 minutes (branched service) that is 9,600 people per hour. If the orange line branched service is 4 car LRT trainsets, not 3 car, that would increase the theoretical capacity to 11,200 people per hour.

at 11,000 people per hour, we're at about 45% of the total number of people driving in Single Occupancy Vehicles on the 405.

That level of coverage is probably sufficient for the corridor.

And remember there is basically non-existant transit service through the mountain range, the only people traversing the mountains are in cars, so we don't really know what will happen as well as we do on most lines.

There is a fair amount of evidence that there is a lot of latent (unmet) demand in the Sepulveda Pass that will provide ridership. Virtually all of the bus line users will stop using the bus and will opt for the train and that will provide ridership. More Ventura County and Antelope Valley commuters might use Metrolink that currently do not and will opt for the train and that will provide ridership.  Probably no VC or AV commuters currently using Metrolink are going through the sepulveda pass so current commuters are not a source of ridership. People leaving their cars will provide ridership.

It's definitely a slam dunk, but does it require HRT? That's less of a slam dunk, and my instincts used to be that it required HRT as well, but the more data I looked at, the more I realized my instincts were not accurate.  We are proposing a rail line traversing a mountain range with up to 30 trains per hour running at peak, a mountain range that acts as an incredibly strong natural barrier limiting peoples movements through that mountain range. The best point of comparison we probably have is the Trans bay tunnel in BART, but I think that is an even stronger natural barrier. BUT the big, gigantic difference is that the proposed Sepulveda Pass does not go to the Central Business District, the Trans Bay Tunnel does. And fundamentally, globally, the rule is that lines that do not go to the CBD will never have ridership as high as lines that do.

My question is - what does everyone think the Sepulveda corridor should be? HRT with a transfer at the Orange Line to Van Nuys LRT, or should it be LRT Subway so it makes one long cohesive line from Sylmar to LAX/Stadium?

HRT is probably overbuilding capacity and would force a transfer from the LRT service which would depress ridership.

I think the line should terminate at the purple line, so it would be Sylmar to Westwood, LRT. I think they should turn the Purple line south from it's current VA terminus and have the purple line go to LAX/Aviation People would then transfer at Wilshire Westwood to get to the airport. But people would also be transferring at Wilshire Westwood to get to Downtown. Or to Get to Century City. Or to get to Beverly Hills.

This would create a double transfer to get to downtown santa monica or to get to culver city, but I don't think that's too much of a sacrifice.

If the purple line ran from LAX, through the westside, through the Century City and Beverly Hills Business district and through the LA CBD it would be one of the top performing HRT lines in the country, possibly out performing some of the NYC lines.

“I think” was just a figure of speech, that’s all. Nothing less, nothing more. It definitely can support HRT. While this corridor does not reach the CBD, it traverses an area that features the worst traffic in the nation.

As my comments regarding changing the definition of what the ESFV corridor & Sepulveda corridors are, as well as my comments about the the Subway portion of the ESFV line. I should clarify. First, yes the short segment they were planning on making subway by itself might not have been worth the money, but I think if you’re going to make the Sepulveda Line as LRT and the ESFV line as LRT as well (creating one line) - I think the smart play is to make ESFV fully grade separated to AT least Van Nuys ML station - whether that be at grade (least expensive but very difficult if not impossible in center of a roadway) or aerial (unlikely to win neighborhood approval) or Subway (my preference). If you’re going to have this Sepulveda Line be a fast mass transit option for thousands of thousands of Valley residents - make it quicker, fast. Repeating the same mistakes that Metro made with the Expo & Blue lines (interacting with traffic, no grade separation) and making it WORSE by having the line stop every two feet.

I forget where on this board it was said but a poster said that the problem with Metro doesn’t try to build one cohesive system - instead they build a bunch of individual projects with its own specifications, dimensions, headways, mode .. so on and so forth. A bandaid approach that just does what that says finances will allow them.

- Regrading your idea for terminating the Sepulveda Line in Westwood followed by turning the Purple south - While most of your analysis was interesting and thoughtful - Im surprised you’d think that was a good idea. First off that practically eliminates the future extension to Santa Monica which WILL be needed because Expo will not be able to accomdate that much traffic. Second off that likely cuts into ridership on the Sepulveda Line. The whole idea behind sacrificing HRT for LRT on Sepulveda was so we could avoid the transfers from ESFV, but now we’re gonna make a forced transfer, an unnecessary one at that in a prime spot? - The much smarter route is to make Sylmar to LAX/Stadium one fast, high capacity LRT line with one mile station spacing. With the two initial HRT lines - a N/S line from Burbank Airport to Vermont/Athens Green Line, and an E/W from Santa Monica beach to Arts District or even further into East LA (maybe even Whittier Blvd)

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 6, 2018 15:45:41 GMT -8 brady12 said:

“I think” was just a figure of speech, that’s all. Nothing less, nothing more. It definitely can support HRT. While this corridor does not reach the CBD, it traverses an area that features the worst traffic in the nation.

As my comments regarding changing the definition of what the ESFV corridor & Sepulveda corridors are, as well as my comments about the the Subway portion of the ESFV line. I should clarify. First, yes the short segment they were planning on making subway by itself might not have been worth the money, but I think if you’re going to make the Sepulveda Line as LRT and the ESFV line as LRT as well (creating one line) - I think the smart play is to make ESFV fully grade separated to AT least Van Nuys ML station - whether that be at grade (least expensive but very difficult if not impossible in center of a roadway) or aerial (unlikely to win neighborhood approval) or Subway (my preference). If you’re going to have this Sepulveda Line be a fast mass transit option for thousands of thousands of Valley residents - make it quicker, fast. Repeating the same mistakes that Metro made with the Expo & Blue lines (interacting with traffic, no grade separation) and making it WORSE by having the line stop every two feet.

Metro has long range plans and more or less does try to integrate those plans. They can't just build simultaneously by fiat.

Half Mile stop spacing is not a problem for the ESFV, it's already at grade, and each of those stops has a significant bus feeder line. If we were to throw out every other stop for 1 mile stop spacing, it will distort all the bus ridership patterns on the feeder lines. The lines with stations will become more crowded (and less usable by new and legacy users) and the lines without stations will suffer from service cuts (and become less useful to legacy users, depressing bus ridership).

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the ESFV is NOT a line meant to be an express through the community as fast as possible while interacting with that community as little as possible, that mode of transit exists, it's called the 405 and uses Single Occupancy Vehicles. only about 15% of riders are expected to be end to end, most ridership is in riders getting on and off the train at intermediate stops.

And it pains me to say it because I'm a big fan of rail service that outcompetes traffic.

Metro isn't building this for the people in cars, they're building for people who will use transit.

- Regrading your idea for terminating the Sepulveda Line in Westwood followed by turning the Purple south - While most of your analysis was interesting and thoughtful - Im surprised you’d think that was a good idea. First off that practically eliminates the future extension to Santa Monica which WILL be needed because Expo will not be able to accomdate that much traffic.

Actually that analysis is doubtful, for a couple reasons.

As a separate project the purple line phase 4 to a Santa Monica Terminus will never recieve federal money because the per-mile added ridership counts will be very low, that's just geography, the line terminates at the sea, which cuts your population circle at the final stop in half. but also, just fewer and fewer riders in santa monica will use it. It's very expensive for the amount of new riders it will add from within the phase itself.

As best I can tell, the fact that extending it to the sea might increase ridership on the entire line by an enormous amount doesn't count for anything. They'll just be counting new riders within the new phase.

Additionally, purple line phase 4 has no money allocated in Measure R or Measure M, and the 1997 law means no Measure A (or other) money can be allocated to subway tunneling.

So there is no federal funding and there is no LA county funding for purple line phase 4, there is a law preventing metro from finding other money to fund it. So the only source of funding would be State funding, and State funding would both be insufficient and would also not be provided to a project that has no local funding.

So the purple line phase 4 to a Santa Monica terminus is as dead as dead can be., unfortunately.

However the ridership speculation that the Expo can't handle the transfer loads has two problems.

One, for purple line riders to get there, they would have to double transfer from Westwood to the ESFV and then to Expo. Santa monica destined purple travelers are more likely to transfer to bus, scooter or ride sharing rather than double transfer.

A Lot of ESFV ridership is captured by the Wilshire purple line destinations, not necessarily Santa Monica,

A lot of ridership of the Expo line gets off at intermediate stops.

So while ESFV will in fact feed Expo and make it even more popular, it’s doubtful the numbers will indicate it will make Expo exceed 90,000 a day.

Second off that likely cuts into ridership on the Sepulveda Line. The whole idea behind sacrificing HRT for LRT on Sepulveda was so we could avoid the transfers from ESFV, but now we’re gonna make a forced transfer, an unnecessary one at that in a prime spot? - The much smarter route is to make Sylmar to LAX/Stadium one fast, high capacity LRT line with one mile station spacing. With the two initial HRT lines - a N/S line from Burbank Airport to Vermont/Athens Green Line, and an E/W from Santa Monica beach to Arts District or even further into East LA (maybe even Whittier Blvd)

I don't even know what this is. neither of those NS lines connect to the CBD.

Sylmar to LAX is a 45 km route that goes north south through the suburbs, connects to a major university and terminates at the Airport. it is better off feeding the higher capacity purple line, rather than being fed by the purple line.

A purple line that goes from LAX to downtown goes from the airport, major hospital, major university, secondary CBD, tourist mecca, more hospitals, museums, the busiest commercial corridor in the country and terminates in the CBD. It would really be one of the most heavily traveled rail lines in the country. oh and it would have a connection to every single light rail line metro has ever built.

If metro is planning more than piecemeal, they should take the dead purple line and connect it to the airport to make their best performing line.

If you are really dedicated to the subway to the sea idea though, you can still have it, just extend the purple line the four miles or so to Dockwieler beach down Imperial. 😕

And the funding is there, for a purple line extension north south from the Va to LAX. It’s in the sepulveda pass measure m funding.

As for the end of service limiting headways on the ESFV at expo, I see no reason the ESFV should go to expo, if purple is going to lax.

If the ESFV terminates at Westwood metro won’t be building a cruciform station for the ESFV over the purple station box at Westwood Blvd. they’ll build an ESFV station underneath parking lot 36 and provide a subterranean walkway to purple because they can route tail tracks down veteran to provide sufficient turnback capacity.

[brady12]

Speaking of which...

Now that everyone has answered on mode, a few more questions I have and I’m curious what everyone thinks:

If they go with LRT for the Sepulveda corridor:

1. How many stations does the line have?

2. Is it all entirely grade separated?

3. How much of the line & what stations are Subway?

4. How does the line interact with LAX? Does it just merely stop at the 96th st station (albeit likely underground not on the Crenshaw/Green tracks) or does it first stop at any of the terminals?

5. Does this line smartly terminate at Inglewood stadium or does Metro go short sighted?

6. When does Metro complete Phase 1/ this entire line?

[brady12]

Aug 6, 2018 16:22:17 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Aug 6, 2018 15:45:41 GMT -8 brady12 said:

“I think” was just a figure of speech, that’s all. Nothing less, nothing more. It definitely can support HRT. While this corridor does not reach the CBD, it traverses an area that features the worst traffic in the nation.

As my comments regarding changing the definition of what the ESFV corridor & Sepulveda corridors are, as well as my comments about the the Subway portion of the ESFV line. I should clarify. First, yes the short segment they were planning on making subway by itself might not have been worth the money, but I think if you’re going to make the Sepulveda Line as LRT and the ESFV line as LRT as well (creating one line) - I think the smart play is to make ESFV fully grade separated to AT least Van Nuys ML station - whether that be at grade (least expensive but very difficult if not impossible in center of a roadway) or aerial (unlikely to win neighborhood approval) or Subway (my preference). If you’re going to have this Sepulveda Line be a fast mass transit option for thousands of thousands of Valley residents - make it quicker, fast. Repeating the same mistakes that Metro made with the Expo & Blue lines (interacting with traffic, no grade separation) and making it WORSE by having the line stop every two feet.

Metro has long range plans and more or less does try to integrate those plans. They can't just build simultaneously by fiat.

Half Mile stop spacing is not a problem for the ESFV, it's already at grade, and each of those stops has a significant bus feeder line. If we were to throw out every other stop for 1 mile stop spacing, it will distort all the bus ridership patterns on the feeder lines. The lines with stations will become more crowded (and less usable by new and legacy users) and the lines without stations will suffer from service cuts (and become less useful to legacy users, depressing bus ridership).

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the ESFV is NOT a line meant to be an express through the community as fast as possible while interacting with that community as little as possible, that mode of transit exists, it's called the 405 and uses Single Occupancy Vehicles. only about 15% of riders are expected to be end to end, most ridership is in riders getting on and off the train at intermediate stops.

And it pains me to say it because I'm a big fan of rail service that outcompetes traffic.

Metro isn't building this for the people in cars, they're building for people who will use transit.

- Regrading your idea for terminating the Sepulveda Line in Westwood followed by turning the Purple south - While most of your analysis was interesting and thoughtful - Im surprised you’d think that was a good idea. First off that practically eliminates the future extension to Santa Monica which WILL be needed because Expo will not be able to accomdate that much traffic.

Actually that analysis is doubtful, for a couple reasons.

As a separate project the purple line phase 4 to a Santa Monica Terminus will never recieve federal money because the per-mile added ridership counts will be very low, that's just geography, the line terminates at the sea, which cuts your population circle at the final stop in half. but also, just fewer and fewer riders in santa monica will use it. It's very expensive for the amount of new riders it will add from within the phase itself.

As best I can tell, the fact that extending it to the sea might increase ridership on the entire line by an enormous amount doesn't count for anything. They'll just be counting new riders within the new phase.

Additionally, purple line phase 4 has no money allocated in Measure R or Measure M, and the 1997 law means no Measure A (or other) money can be allocated to subway tunneling.

So there is no federal funding and there is no LA county funding for purple line phase 4, there is a law preventing metro from finding other money to fund it. So the only source of funding would be State funding, and State funding would both be insufficient and would also not be provided to a project that has no local funding.

So the purple line phase 4 to a Santa Monica terminus is as dead as dead can be., unfortunately.

However the ridership speculation that the Expo can't handle the transfer loads has two problems.

One, for purple line riders to get there, they would have to double transfer from Westwood to the ESFV and then to Expo. Santa monica destined purple travelers are more likely to transfer to bus, scooter or ride sharing rather than double transfer.

A Lot of ESFV ridership is captured by the Wilshire purple line destinations, not necessarily Santa Monica,

A lot of ridership of the Expo line gets off at intermediate stops.

So while ESFV will in fact feed Expo and make it even more popular, it’s doubtful the numbers will indicate it will make Expo exceed 90,000 a day.

Second off that likely cuts into ridership on the Sepulveda Line. The whole idea behind sacrificing HRT for LRT on Sepulveda was so we could avoid the transfers from ESFV, but now we’re gonna make a forced transfer, an unnecessary one at that in a prime spot? - The much smarter route is to make Sylmar to LAX/Stadium one fast, high capacity LRT line with one mile station spacing. With the two initial HRT lines - a N/S line from Burbank Airport to Vermont/Athens Green Line, and an E/W from Santa Monica beach to Arts District or even further into East LA (maybe even Whittier Blvd)

I don't even know what this is. neither of those NS lines connect to the CBD.

Sylmar to LAX is a 45 km route that goes north south through the suburbs, connects to a major university and terminates at the Airport. it is better off feeding the higher capacity purple line, rather than being fed by the purple line.

A purple line that goes from LAX to downtown goes from the airport, major hospital, major university, secondary CBD, tourist mecca, more hospitals, museums, the busiest commercial corridor in the country and terminates in the CBD. It would really be one of the most heavily traveled rail lines in the country. oh and it would have a connection to every single light rail line metro has ever built.

If metro is planning more than piecemeal, they should take the dead purple line and connect it to the airport to make their best performing line.

If you are really dedicated to the subway to the sea idea though, you can still have it, just extend the purple line the four miles or so to Dockwieler beach down Imperial. 😕

And the funding is there, for a purple line extension north south from the Va to LAX. It’s in the sepulveda pass measure m funding.

As for the end of service limiting headways on the ESFV at expo, I see no reason the ESFV should go to expo, if purple is going to lax.

If the ESFV terminates at Westwood metro won’t be building a cruciform station for the ESFV over the purple station box at Westwood Blvd. they’ll build an ESFV station underneath parking lot 36 and provide a subterranean walkway to purple because they can route tail tracks down veteran to provide sufficient turnback capacity.

So let me just bounce off the premise that the ESFV line isn’t meant to be a fast quick line and all that jazz...

So the plan is to have one single line that from Sylmar to OL is a neighborhood people mover of sorts, with half a mile spacing and such - then once it gets to OL it becomes a more traditional rapid transit fast, quick, convenient line from Sepulveda southward?

And on the point that they are building this for those who use mass transit and not those who use cars. Is that the right approach? I mean the whole reason these ballot measures passed is because people desperately wanted other options to avoid LA traffic. Metro is undoubtedly on a building boom to try and convert a huge segment of the car centric citizens of LA county into Mass transit riders.
I guess what I’m saying is - can’t they do both? Both appeal to the loyal population that has used mass transit to this point (low income, students, tourists) AS WELL as the segment of the population that would be open to making Metro a part of their daily life if it was FAST, QUICK, RELIABLE, DEPENDABLE and went places they wanted to go! ... In the case of the ESFV/Sepulveda you accomplish that by potentially keeping the station spacing for the most part - but spending whatever it costs to make grade separation a reality.

(BTW All those details are depressing regarding the purple line to Santa Monica. I have to think somehow that will change in due time. It would add so much to the purple line)

[culvercitylocke]

There's nothign wrong with a fast quick route, it's what Elon wants to build.

But if you want a 45 km "Suburbs-to-the-Airport" line from Sylmar to LAX then it can't be designed with end-to-end riders in mind, it has to be designed for the riders and potential riders including the residents.

Thinking that you should be able to have non-stop service that bypasses the area--and the people living there--you are traveling through is highway-thinking, car centered thinking. Transit can't make car-thinking the center of its plans.

Speed certainly matters, especially to riders. Look at the Crenshaw phase 2 plans, the La Brea route, (with an end to end time of merely 12 minutes) has 50% of the jobs/destinations of the fairfax routes, but costs 63% of what Fairfax route and more importantly maintains 97% of the ridership of the fairfax route.

That's how much speed matters, a line that better serves the destinations people want to go but is a few minutes slower is still matched in ridership by a faster line.

[numble]

Aug 6, 2018 17:14:26 GMT -8 brady12 said:

So let me just bounce off the premise that the ESFV line isn’t meant to be a fast quick line and all that jazz...

So the plan is to have one single line that from Sylmar to OL is a neighborhood people mover of sorts, with half a mile spacing and such - then once it gets to OL it becomes a more traditional rapid transit fast, quick, convenient line from Sepulveda southward?

And on the point that they are building this for those who use mass transit and not those who use cars. Is that the right approach? I mean the whole reason these ballot measures passed is because people desperately wanted other options to avoid LA traffic. Metro is undoubtedly on a building boom to try and convert a huge segment of the car centric citizens of LA county into Mass transit riders.
I guess what I’m saying is - can’t they do both? Both appeal to the loyal population that has used mass transit to this point (low income, students, tourists) AS WELL as the segment of the population that would be open to making Metro a part of their daily life if it was FAST, QUICK, RELIABLE, DEPENDABLE and went places they wanted to go! ... In the case of the ESFV/Sepulveda you accomplish that by potentially keeping the station spacing for the most part - but spending whatever it costs to make grade separation a reality.

(BTW All those details are depressing regarding the purple line to Santa Monica. I have to think somehow that will change in due time. It would add so much to the purple line)

I am rehashing some things I have posted from awhile back:

In 2012, Metro actually did a comprehensive study with estimated boardings and timings for HRT and LRT between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX, with only 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard (Orange Line). We therefore have studies on a "5 station LRT/HRT version" and the current "14 station LRT version".

media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/4.0%20Potential%20Ridership-Usage%20of%20Alternative%20Concepts.pdf

The light rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-11, page 31. The heavy rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-14, page 35. The concepts followed the same routes as the 14-station locally preferred alternative, but with fewer stations. The maps for the concepts are on page 64.

The concepts considered a tunnel for the Sepulveda pass, but operating at-grade north of the pass.

It was an estimated 27.5 minutes for the 5 stations between Sylmar and Oxnard. The 14-station locally preferred alternative has an estimated time of 31 minutes end-to-end. Adding 9 stations does not seem to make it too much slower, only 3.5 minutes slower. The heavy rail alternative was 20.4 minutes, though--so a savings of 10.6 minutes.

In terms of boardings, if you treat the 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard as its own line, it has ~32,636 estimated daily boardings for the light-rail line (~39,024 estimated for the heavy rail alternative) compared to the estimated 47,400 boardings for the 14-station locally preferred alternative. The number likely would be less since the estimated boardings for a "5 station line" are not actually there, it is based on estimates for a Sylmar to LAX line, and include the network effects of a longer line and also include southbound boardings at Oxnard (there are no southbound boardings at Oxnard included in the estimates for the ESFV line, since it is the terminus station). All in all, it does not seem to be the case that having 9 more stations would reduce the number of boardings, but rather increase the number of boardings.

The location of the 14 stations currently have very good bus ridership, which is probably why their studies indicated it had more ridership potential than a 5 station option:


To summarize, the 2012 study says the 5 station option will have 25,000-32,636 riders and takes 27.5 minutes, and the current study of the 14 station option says there will be 47,400 riders and takes 31 minutes.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 6, 2018 16:40:45 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Speaking of which...

Now that everyone has answered on mode, a few more questions I have and I’m curious what everyone thinks:

If they go with LRT for the Sepulveda corridor:

1. How many stations does the line have?

LAX to Purple is five stations.

dual terminus. Orange Line Van Nuys + Orange Line Sepulveda (future feeder line of the orange line conversion)

"Chandler" / Van Nuys (split the difference between Burbank and Magnolia and it's a big cut and cover because of the wye to feed both lines north of Chandler)

Ventura / Van Nuys

UCLA (Sunset blvd/Charles Young/Intramural field behind Pauley Pavilion)

Wilshire / Westwood (station under parking lot 36 with tail tracks down Veteran)


Then Mode matters
if purple HRT to LAX 7 stations
single bore construction with standardized off-street excavations, routed in the mid-westside, not the 405/Sepulveda, which eliminates the need for a future Lincoln line as well.

Sepulveda / Barrington

Bundy / Santa Monica

Olympic-Pico / Bundy / Expo

Centinela / Venice

Centinela / Jefferson

Sepulveda / Howard Hughes

Aviation / 96th

If ESFV LRT to LAX 7 to 8 stations

Sepulveda / Santa Monica

Sepulveda / Expo

Sepulveda / Venice

Sepulveda / Culver

Sepulveda / Jefferson

Slauson / Hannum . (Fox Hills Mall plus office park)

Howard Hughes

Aviation / 96th

2. Is it all entirely grade separated?

Yes

3. How much of the line & what stations are Subway?

Probably at least 60% tunnel from purple to LAX for even LRT: you could do Aerial from National to Slauson (3.5 miles), probably need to tunnel from westwood to National (2.4 miles) and from Slauson to Manchester (2.1 miles)

4. How does the line interact with LAX? Does it just merely stop at the 96th st station (albeit likely underground not on the Crenshaw/Green tracks) or does it first stop at any of the terminals?

No tunneling underneath the airport is ever going to be allowed ever by the FAA or LAWA.

Terrorism risks, water table risks, destroying parts of the runway to do jet grouting, and thus losing capacity during construction. utility relocation, and a million other reasons. It is never going to happen.

Anything going to LAX is going to connect at Aviation 96th. end of story. Sorry.

5. Does this line smartly terminate at Inglewood stadium or does Metro go short sighted?

If purple is extended, I think it ought to, and turning it back east opens the door to further expand purple as a circumferential line.

6. When does Metro complete Phase 1/ this entire line?

hahahahahahahahaha

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 6, 2018 18:26:04 GMT -8 numble said:

To summarize, the 2012 study says the 5 station option will have 25,000-32,636 riders and takes 27.5 minutes, and the current study of the 14 station option says there will be 47,400 riders and takes 31 minutes.

Yeah, no matter how you slice and dice it, it still takes time to travel nine miles. A lot of people riding in cars think transit should take nine minutes to travel that distance, but that isn't how transit works.

[numble]

Going from the LAX station to the stadium area is 2 miles. There is not much potential ridership besides on occasional game days. Based on the below study (page 10), there is a max average ridership of 4,000 people to that station per day, and would cost $1.3 to $2 billion.

If the Chargers/Rams/Clippers want to pay for the extension, go for it, but they do not seem to be willing to pay for the proposed Inglewood People Mover or extending the Crenshaw Line to the stadium, so I doubt they would pay to extend this line to the stadium area.

I would rather $2 billion be spent elsewhere, like for the Vermont subway, or Crenshaw North.

This prior Metro study on connection of Crenshaw Line to the Stadium has a lot of useful info:
lametro.nextrequest.com/documents/182842/download?token=

[brady12]

Aug 7, 2018 4:10:44 GMT -8 numble said:

Going from the LAX station to the stadium area is 2 miles. There is not much potential ridership besides on occasional game days. Based on the below study (page 10), there is a max average ridership of 4,000 people to that station per day, and would cost $1.3 to $2 billion.

If the Chargers/Rams/Clippers want to pay for the extension, go for it, but they do not seem to be willing to pay for the proposed Inglewood People Mover or extending the Crenshaw Line to the stadium, so I doubt they would pay to extend this line to the stadium area.

I would rather $2 billion be spent elsewhere, like for the Vermont subway, or Crenshaw North.

This prior Metro study on connection of Crenshaw Line to the Stadium has a lot of useful info:
lametro.nextrequest.com/documents/182842/download?token=

I disagree - remember this won’t just be an NFL stadium with 20 games a year at minimum. You’re talking likely the best stadium in the nation, one that will cost Super Bowls, national title games, final fours, concerts .. on and on. You’re also talking about thousands of residents who will move into condos, plus some affordable housing. You’re talking NFL Network moving there, dozens of destination dining locations, destination shopping, a 6k seat theater ... and then the proposed Clippers arena. I think building a mega station underground that is between the arena and the stadium, with the Inglewood people mover directly above it - would be a huge ridership draw. You’ll see it used in droves IMO and take away so much expected traffic from that area.

And I know this is definetly unlikely but if I had it my way I would recommend extending the line 5 miles from LAX station over to Vermont/Century to connect with the Red line Vermont extension.. if that ever gets built (Vermont is low on Metros priority list even though it should be third after Sepulveda & Crenshaw North)

[fissure]

Aug 6, 2018 16:22:17 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

A purple line that goes from LAX to downtown goes from the airport, major hospital, major university, secondary CBD, tourist mecca, more hospitals, museums, the busiest commercial corridor in the country and terminates in the CBD.

Expanding the line 50% in length to add one more destination doesn't sound like a good use of money. People aren't going to want to double transfer to get to Santa Monica or Culver City, and will want one-seat rides to e.g. Howard Hughes. Bus ridership on Sepulveda and Centinela is nowhere near Wilshire, so there's not enough demand heading south to need that much capacity.

[numble]

Aug 7, 2018 9:21:08 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Aug 7, 2018 4:10:44 GMT -8 numble said:

Going from the LAX station to the stadium area is 2 miles. There is not much potential ridership besides on occasional game days. Based on the below study (page 10), there is a max average ridership of 4,000 people to that station per day, and would cost $1.3 to $2 billion.

If the Chargers/Rams/Clippers want to pay for the extension, go for it, but they do not seem to be willing to pay for the proposed Inglewood People Mover or extending the Crenshaw Line to the stadium, so I doubt they would pay to extend this line to the stadium area.

I would rather $2 billion be spent elsewhere, like for the Vermont subway, or Crenshaw North.

This prior Metro study on connection of Crenshaw Line to the Stadium has a lot of useful info:
lametro.nextrequest.com/documents/182842/download?token=

I disagree - remember this won’t just be an NFL stadium with 20 games a year at minimum. You’re talking likely the best stadium in the nation, one that will cost Super Bowls, national title games, final fours, concerts .. on and on. You’re also talking about thousands of residents who will move into condos, plus some affordable housing. You’re talking NFL Network moving there, dozens of destination dining locations, destination shopping, a 6k seat theater ... and then the proposed Clippers arena. I think building a mega station underground that is between the arena and the stadium, with the Inglewood people mover directly above it - would be a huge ridership draw. You’ll see it used in droves IMO and take away so much expected traffic from that area.

And I know this is definetly unlikely but if I had it my way I would recommend extending the line 5 miles from LAX station over to Vermont/Century to connect with the Red line Vermont extension.. if that ever gets built (Vermont is low on Metros priority list even though it should be third after Sepulveda & Crenshaw North)

The study already considered all those factors because the ridership prediction was for 2040 and they considered the potential Clippers arena and additional development. You still won’t see that many commuters heading there on a daily basis compared to other places. Even Inglewood’s own People Mover study doesn’t think they will get many riders, on page 73 of the PDF, they think they will only get 5,000 to 6,000 daily riders:
envisioninglewood.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Envision-Inglewood-Locally-Preferred-Alternative-Report.pdf

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 6, 2018 16:40:45 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Speaking of which...

6. When does Metro complete Phase 1/ this entire line?

Circling back to this with an actual answer

This is presuming there are really three phases:

1. ESFV LRT

2. ESFV to Purple Line

3. Purple Line to LAX

ESFV to purple line is entirely dependent on how they want to build it. Since it is likely going to involve either

Tunnel, Aerial, and Tunnel or

100% tunnel

A lot of the timeline is dependent upon how they decide to construct.

TBMs can go faster than 15m per day (they did on the regional connector), but that's a good rule of thumb, so let's presume they can tunnel 15m per day.

The duration of the tunneling drive if we have a 9,000 meter direct tunnel (from Ventura to UCLA) is 600 days, or 120 weeks, and subtracting for holidays etc, probably 2.5 years to create a continuous 9,000 meter tunnel.

IF they choose tunnel aerial tunnel, You're probably looking at 2,400 meters of tunneling from Hatteras to Milbank, an aerial station at Ventura, Aerial up the 405, down the 405 for about an 8.8km aerial run to Getty Drive (there's room for staging area and a launch/extraction pit at the freeway ramps Then you have a 4,000 meter tunneling drive to a station probably under the tennis courts behind Pauley Pavilion.


Assuming that the 4000 meter tunneling drive and the 2400 meter tunneling drive could be done simultaneously rather than sequentially, you could finish the tunnel drives in as little as 15 months.

However, Metro construction tends to be only sequentially (so much money is released from sales tax revenues per annum) so this is likely 6,400 meters of tunneling broken up in two separate drives which would likely take just shy of 2 years of actual tunneling, but given that metro will not be doing a perfect sequential construction, there will be a large gap, probably 2-4 years in duration, between the two tunneling drives. So building it this way could take as many as six years, but will probably take around 3.5 years.

So best case is T-A-T can be done in 1.25 years, worst case is T-A-T will take six years.

there really isn't a best/worst case for the 9,000 meter direct tunnel from Ventura to UCLA, that is going to take about 2.5 years.

BUT!

Let us circle back, this is merely talking the actual tunneling drive.

Baseline, an Environmental impact report takes three and a half years to get finalized. The purple extension was funded in November 2008, and the FEIR was done in early 2012.

First before you tunnel you have 3 years of utility relocation on the tunnel corridor

Second before you tunnel you have 5 years of station excavation and construction, inclusive, presumably, of your tunnel launch box, this overlaps with the last year of utility relocation

Third, before you tunnel, you have to do 2-3 years of jet-grouting at the location of every tunnel cross passage (this gem is what destroys the surface streets the most and is what makes life hell for those in the vicinity of the construction), and there's a cross passage every 200meters. Jet grouting overlaps with the last year of utility relocation as well. Jet grouting is the worst part of tunneling for everyone.

Fourth, it takes about six months to assemble the Tunnel Boring Machine in the launch pit, once all the utility relocation and jet grouting and station construction have finished.

So before you ever tunnel, you have six and a half years of preparation work to do. This is the purple line timeline, approved in early 2012, launching their first tunnel drive in Aug-Oct 2018. Six and a half years later.

So, let's figure ten years, if they started the EIR process right now, so you're looking at 2028 or 2029 Just to get to the point where we start building the tunnels.

Then we have 1.25 to 6 years of actual tunneling.

But that time only get you to the end of tunneling. While station construction continues while the tunnel drives are going, AFTER the tunnel drives, you're looking at 1-2 years of construction completing tunnel systems. This is the laying of floors, electrical systems, ventilation and of course lots and lots of men with jackhammers, chopping holes in the walls of the tunnels every 200 meters to buildthe cross passages (the cross passages are what we did all the hellish jet grouting for, remember).

Then we have at least six months of systems testing.

So the earliest this could possibly open--for phase one--is probably 2032, fourteen years

IF we do the above dual tunnel bore construction.

There is a better way, well suited to these long tunneling distances, that is cheaper to build, faster to build, and less disruptive to build.

Build a single bore large diameter tunnel instead.

The tunneling drive takes the same, but Stations excavations are located off street, not under the street, so the station construction is about as disruptive as the construction to build a skyscraper footing.

The stations being off street means that utility relocation is minimized to a few months, rather than a few years.

Large diameter single bore tunnels have no need to build cross passages, so that means jet-grouting is minimized, only at the beginning and end of the station platforms, so rather than taking a few years, jet grouting takes a few months, and does not destroy the entire landscape/street

Tunneling takes basically the same length of time, but excavates slightly more material, so you have some additional costs in terms of hauling out the excavated material.

So now you have three and half years of environmental review, six months of utility relocation, six months of jet grouting, simultaneous with one year of launch box construction, and two and a half year tunnel drive (simultaneous with station construction), two years of tunnel systems (simultaneous with station finishes), and six months of testing.

Add it all up and you have a nine and half years before it could possibly open, which is a pretty good improvement on the fourteen years the traditional dual bore will take to build.

[numble]

Aug 7, 2018 14:54:42 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Aug 6, 2018 16:40:45 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Speaking of which...

6. When does Metro complete Phase 1/ this entire line?

Circling back to this with an actual answer

This is presuming there are really three phases:

1. ESFV LRT

2. ESFV to Purple Line

3. Purple Line to LAX

ESFV to purple line is entirely dependent on how they want to build it. Since it is likely going to involve either

Tunnel, Aerial, and Tunnel or

100% tunnel

A lot of the timeline is dependent upon how they decide to construct.

TBMs can go faster than 15m per day (they did on the regional connector), but that's a good rule of thumb, so let's presume they can tunnel 15m per day.

The duration of the tunneling drive if we have a 9,000 meter direct tunnel (from Ventura to UCLA) is 600 days, or 120 weeks, and subtracting for holidays etc, probably 2.5 years to create a continuous 9,000 meter tunnel.

IF they choose tunnel aerial tunnel, You're probably looking at 2,400 meters of tunneling from Hatteras to Milbank, an aerial station at Ventura, Aerial up the 405, down the 405 for about an 8.8km aerial run to Getty Drive (there's room for staging area and a launch/extraction pit at the freeway ramps Then you have a 4,000 meter tunneling drive to a station probably under the tennis courts behind Pauley Pavilion.


Assuming that the 4000 meter tunneling drive and the 2400 meter tunneling drive could be done simultaneously rather than sequentially, you could finish the tunnel drives in as little as 15 months.

However, Metro construction tends to be only sequentially (so much money is released from sales tax revenues per annum) so this is likely 6,400 meters of tunneling broken up in two separate drives which would likely take just shy of 2 years of actual tunneling, but given that metro will not be doing a perfect sequential construction, there will be a large gap, probably 2-4 years in duration, between the two tunneling drives. So building it this way could take as many as six years, but will probably take around 3.5 years.

So best case is T-A-T can be done in 1.25 years, worst case is T-A-T will take six years.

there really isn't a best/worst case for the 9,000 meter direct tunnel from Ventura to UCLA, that is going to take about 2.5 years.

BUT!

Let us circle back, this is merely talking the actual tunneling drive.

Baseline, an Environmental impact report takes three and a half years to get finalized. The purple extension was funded in November 2008, and the FEIR was done in early 2012.

First before you tunnel you have 3 years of utility relocation on the tunnel corridor

Second before you tunnel you have 5 years of station excavation and construction, inclusive, presumably, of your tunnel launch box, this overlaps with the last year of utility relocation

Third, before you tunnel, you have to do 2-3 years of jet-grouting at the location of every tunnel cross passage (this gem is what destroys the surface streets the most and is what makes life hell for those in the vicinity of the construction), and there's a cross passage every 200meters. Jet grouting overlaps with the last year of utility relocation as well. Jet grouting is the worst part of tunneling for everyone.

Fourth, it takes about six months to assemble the Tunnel Boring Machine in the launch pit, once all the utility relocation and jet grouting and station construction have finished.

So before you ever tunnel, you have six and a half years of preparation work to do. This is the purple line timeline, approved in early 2012, launching their first tunnel drive in Aug-Oct 2018. Six and a half years later.

So, let's figure ten years, if they started the EIR process right now, so you're looking at 2028 or 2029 Just to get to the point where we start building the tunnels.

Then we have 1.25 to 6 years of actual tunneling.

But that time only get you to the end of tunneling. While station construction continues while the tunnel drives are going, AFTER the tunnel drives, you're looking at 1-2 years of construction completing tunnel systems. This is the laying of floors, electrical systems, ventilation and of course lots and lots of men with jackhammers, chopping holes in the walls of the tunnels every 200 meters to buildthe cross passages (the cross passages are what we did all the hellish jet grouting for, remember).

Then we have at least six months of systems testing.

So the earliest this could possibly open--for phase one--is probably 2032, fourteen years

IF we do the above dual tunnel bore construction.

There is a better way, well suited to these long tunneling distances, that is cheaper to build, faster to build, and less disruptive to build.

Build a single bore large diameter tunnel instead.

The tunneling drive takes the same, but Stations excavations are located off street, not under the street, so the station construction is about as disruptive as the construction to build a skyscraper footing.

The stations being off street means that utility relocation is minimized to a few months, rather than a few years.

Large diameter single bore tunnels have no need to build cross passages, so that means jet-grouting is minimized, only at the beginning and end of the station platforms, so rather than taking a few years, jet grouting takes a few months, and does not destroy the entire landscape/street

Tunneling takes basically the same length of time, but excavates slightly more material, so you have some additional costs in terms of hauling out the excavated material.

So now you have three and half years of environmental review, six months of utility relocation, six months of jet grouting, simultaneous with one year of launch box construction, and two and a half year tunnel drive (simultaneous with station construction), two years of tunnel systems (simultaneous with station finishes), and six months of testing.

Add it all up and you have a nine and half years before it could possibly open, which is a pretty good improvement on the fourteen years the traditional dual bore will take to build.

Metro's estimated non-accelerated timeline is available on page 10 of its Program Management Annual Program Evaluation presentation: metro.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=1fa14ee7-a777-4d51-b397-bb90b17dcb6e.pdf

They expect the planning/environmental process to continue until about the middle of 2024 (end of fiscal year 2024), followed by a year and a half of engineering, then a 1 year bid period, then about 10 years of construction, followed by over half a year of testing and opening of the phase to Westwood in 2037.

They are pursuing a P3 for this project using a preliminary development agreement, which is different from the P3 pursued for the WSAB. I understand it brings a contractor into the process before the EIR process is completed, which can accelerate the timeline (at least it would seem to reduce or eliminate the 1-year bid delay after EIR is completed).
thesource.metro.net/2018/07/11/improving-metros-unsolicited-proposal-policy/

[brady12]

That is INSANE. That is so long it’s ridiculous.

What happened to the 28 by 28?

[numble]

Aug 8, 2018 0:32:09 GMT -8 brady12 said:

That is INSANE. That is so long it’s ridiculous.

What happened to the 28 by 28?

28 by 28 is a target, but not a plan. They hope to try to build it by 2028 if they can find ways to accelerate it.

[brady12]

Aug 8, 2018 2:20:20 GMT -8 numble said:

Aug 8, 2018 0:32:09 GMT -8 brady12 said:

That is INSANE. That is so long it’s ridiculous.

What happened to the 28 by 28?

28 by 28 is a target, but not a plan. They hope to try to build it by 2028 if they can find ways to accelerate it.

It’s a shame that LA can’t use the Olympics as an excuse to receive a large sum of infrastructure dollars like other host cities do.

What does it tell the world when the richest and most powerful nation on earth has subpar mass transit in its second largest city for the Olympics?

Unfortunately you’d need overwhelming Democratic majorities in all 3 legislative branches in Washington to see serious Federal dollars. Why the massive 2009 stimulus didn’t feature billions in rail investment is beyond me.

Vermont Red Line, Sylmar to LAX (entirely grade separated even in the valley), Crenshaw North subway, Orange LRT, Purple to Santa Monica, Lincoln Blvd LRT, WSAB... in fantasy land even a Pink line on SMB.... any one of those projects should’ve seen massive federal dollars with Dems ruling all 3 branches, Pelosi as speaker and Boxer & Feinstein high up on the Senate hierarchy, but I digress.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 8, 2018 5:58:05 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Aug 8, 2018 2:20:20 GMT -8 numble said:

28 by 28 is a target, but not a plan. They hope to try to build it by 2028 if they can find ways to accelerate it.

It’s a shame that LA can’t use the Olympics as an excuse to receive a large sum of infrastructure dollars like other host cities do.

What does it tell the world when the richest and most powerful nation on earth has subpar mass transit in its second largest city for the Olympics?

Unfortunately you’d need overwhelming Democratic majorities in all 3 legislative branches in Washington to see serious Federal dollars. Why the massive 2009 stimulus didn’t feature billions in rail investment is beyond me.

Vermont Red Line, Sylmar to LAX (entirely grade separated even in the valley), Crenshaw North subway, Orange LRT, Purple to Santa Monica, Lincoln Blvd LRT, WSAB... in fantasy land even a Pink line on SMB.... any one of those projects should’ve seen massive federal dollars with Dems ruling all 3 branches, Pelosi as speaker and Boxer & Feinstein high up on the Senate hierarchy, but I digress.

We did get billions in rail dollars about four billion for HSR.

But yes, there should have been more.

Also metrolink and other commuter rail across the state were going to submit for billions in stimulus funds: for safety improvements (grade separations, double tracking etc) but Schwarzenegger vetoed the proposal because he thought If California commuter rail got money congress would decide we shouldn’t get any of the thirty billion that was supposed to be allocated to HSR.

The other big problem was all the neo liberal experts and economists in the administration and advising congress all 100% agreed that they should do very little on infrastructure because it was too slow so it wouldn’t effectively act as stimulus.

Well that is correct but there are two big problems that made this correct analysis a huge failure:

1. The GFC was 450% worse than their own worst case estimates (but because the DC area was the only part of the country that was not experiencing job losses, Congress didn’t really notice how bad it was, and since all the experts advising congress live in that area none of them really believed it could be that bad, they had insufficient aggregate data and no comparable anecdotal experiences, so they were incredibly wrong about the severity)

2. Infrastructure spending may be slow but it builds a long term constituency to advocate it—and everyone can see it happening, infrastructure spending is also psychological stimulus.

Since so little was happening with infrastructure, the vast majority of people saw nothing concrete (literally, hah) happening to help and they got more and more angry, and democrats paid the price for the arrogant ignorance of their own expertise.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 8, 2018 0:32:09 GMT -8 brady12 said:

That is INSANE. That is so long it’s ridiculous.

What happened to the 28 by 28?

Measure R and Measure M provide sales tax dollars annually. this forces a sequential schedule for all metro construction.

To achieve the acceleration of 28 by 28, we would have to receive an advance on those sales tax dollars from a large entity (the federal government, the state government or sovereign wealth funds)

That would give metro a large pool of money to advance construction so that it can achieve more simultaneously, thus pulling off 28 by 28.

However, it looks like one of the big constraining factor is that the labor pool is low (because housing is so high), so even if we had all the money to build all the 28 by 28 projects starting right now, there are not enough bodies available to do all the proposed work simultaneously.

And more workers from around the country are unwilling to move here because even with guaranteed work and high wages, there is no place for them to live. So even if a construction worker moves here and is making 90,000 a year, if he's spending 21,000 plus on just housing near the job, that is a third of his after tax income, and mostly imported workers are probably not making a permanent move, they're sending money back to Colorado or Arizona where their family is, so they're probably paying all the costs of their rent/mortgage, and associated costs of living in the state of their permanent home.

Even making excellent money, housing is so high in Los Angeles (and so scarce!) that it doesn't make good financial sense for most workers. If wages went up about 20%, we could probably attract however many we need, but now your construction labor costs have just blown a huge hole in your project budgets.

[culvercitylocke]

Aug 7, 2018 22:18:47 GMT -8 numble said:

[Metro's estimated non-accelerated timeline is available on page 10 of its Program Management Annual Program Evaluation presentation: metro.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=1fa14ee7-a777-4d51-b397-bb90b17dcb6e.pdf

They expect the planning/environmental process to continue until about the middle of 2024 (end of fiscal year 2024), followed by a year and a half of engineering, then a 1 year bid period, then about 10 years of construction, followed by over half a year of testing and opening of the phase to Westwood in 2037.

They are pursuing a P3 for this project using a preliminary development agreement, which is different from the P3 pursued for the WSAB. I understand it brings a contractor into the process before the EIR process is completed, which can accelerate the timeline (at least it would seem to reduce or eliminate the 1-year bid delay after EIR is completed).
thesource.metro.net/2018/07/11/improving-metros-unsolicited-proposal-policy/

Yeah a P3 is a f**king joke for this project. Sorry for the language, but it is insane.

Why? Because every private tunnel project in the history of the world has always gone bankrupt.

For metro to engage in a deal that will guarantee profits to the private entity but metro is on the hook for the losses is utterly insane.

What will happen is they P3 build the tunnel, the tunnel fares are set so high that they depress ridership very low. this creates a vicious feedback loop cycle forcing higher fares and lower ridership. And the private entity goes bankrupt.

Then metro is FORCED to close the tunnel and hold it in non-operation, because if they maintain the tunnel as active, they have to pay the P3 partner the partner's guaranteed profits. So metro closes it, rather than operate it, because it's the only way to not be paying a billion a year to the partner.

And taxpayers will have still paid for the majority of the 10 billion cost, but they will get no benefit from it because the tunnel will be closed and unusable.

[numble]

Aug 8, 2018 9:02:28 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Aug 7, 2018 22:18:47 GMT -8 numble said:

[Metro's estimated non-accelerated timeline is available on page 10 of its Program Management Annual Program Evaluation presentation: metro.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=1fa14ee7-a777-4d51-b397-bb90b17dcb6e.pdf

They expect the planning/environmental process to continue until about the middle of 2024 (end of fiscal year 2024), followed by a year and a half of engineering, then a 1 year bid period, then about 10 years of construction, followed by over half a year of testing and opening of the phase to Westwood in 2037.

They are pursuing a P3 for this project using a preliminary development agreement, which is different from the P3 pursued for the WSAB. I understand it brings a contractor into the process before the EIR process is completed, which can accelerate the timeline (at least it would seem to reduce or eliminate the 1-year bid delay after EIR is completed).
thesource.metro.net/2018/07/11/improving-metros-unsolicited-proposal-policy/

Yeah a P3 is a f**king joke for this project. Sorry for the language, but it is insane.

Why? Because every private tunnel project in the history of the world has always gone bankrupt.

For metro to engage in a deal that will guarantee profits to the private entity but metro is on the hook for the losses is utterly insane.

What will happen is they P3 build the tunnel, the tunnel fares are set so high that they depress ridership very low. this creates a vicious feedback loop cycle forcing higher fares and lower ridership. And the private entity goes bankrupt.

Then metro is FORCED to close the tunnel and hold it in non-operation, because if they maintain the tunnel as active, they have to pay the P3 partner the partner's guaranteed profits. So metro closes it, rather than operate it, because it's the only way to not be paying a billion a year to the partner.

And taxpayers will have still paid for the majority of the 10 billion cost, but they will get no benefit from it because the tunnel will be closed and unusable.

There is no indication they are pursuing a P3 where they guarantee profits to a private partner. The common approach these days, and the one selected for the Denver Eagle P3 which Phil Washington oversaw, is to to pursue a DBFOM project. In the Eagle P3, the transit agency keeps all the revenues and the contractor only gets payments for operating the line. In the LAX P3, the same will happen. Metro recently rejected a P3 proposal for the 405 ExpressLanes because Metro wanted to keep the toll revenues.

The LAX People Mover project is a DBFOM project and I think it is indicative of the type of P3 project Metro would pursue. The contractor joint venture funds $900 million of the construction of that project but will get the vehicle contract and the operation contract for 25 years.

Based on the 2012 Sepulveda Corridor Preliminary Cost Report (page 29 of PDF):
media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/6.0%20Preliminary%20Cost%20Report.pdf
Heavy rail cost $188,173,752 per year in 2012 dollars to operate and maintain. Over 25 years that is $4.7 billion in operating and maintenance costs.
Light rail cost $141,653,796 per year in 2012 dollars to operate and maintain. Over 25 years that is $3.5 billion in operating and maintenance costs.

The idea would be that instead of Metro taking on those costs itself, it awards a multi-year, multi-billion operations contract alongside the construction contract. The contractor is also then incentivized to build a reliable line in the first place, because the contractor will be on the hook for any operations and maintenance issues.

For current lines, the contractor might not build the sturdiest lines since Metro is on the hook for maintenance after it is built (and so we see issues with, for example, the Gold Line catenary wires being disconnected about once a year, or the extensive costs to rehabilitate the Blue Line).

The recent vehicles contracts:
$647 million for Red/Purple Line vehicles: mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN16Y0ZA

$890 million for light rail vehicles:
www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2014/11/26/kinkisharyo-inks-deal-to-build-light-rail-cars-in.html

LAX is still paying the majority of the construction cost for the people mover, with the private partner investing less than half of the construction cost. The aim is to get private partners who want to try to recoup their portion of the construction costs through the operations and vehicle contracts. They could try to save on operation costs by using automated trains, for example, which means each train does not have a driver costing an average of $108k in salary and benefits. Automating trains might mean interlining with at-grade sections won’t work, though.

I wouldn’t completely rule out an extra charge for using the line, because a $1/ride charge can probably generate $1 billion in revenue over 25 years.

[Upslope]

That's not how it worked out with the Chunnel, where everyone took major losses/write downs on the debt but it kept operating throughout various restructurings and crises. Why would this be any different? Can you imagine the political outcry of keeping a major infrastructure link closed due to the guaranteed profits a private entity? Said entity would have a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning a major govt contract in SoCal anytime soon. So, yes, the project is likely to go BK, but the debt will be restructured, investors will take losses, trains will keep operating and I'll have lunch.