|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 21:22:13 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 16, 2009 21:22:13 GMT -8
Aha! Here's the guts of the article: Currently, trains operate between the two stations at just 10mph, taking approximately four minutes to travel the half-mile span.
That speed is determined by signals running through the tracks, and operators are unable to exceed what the car picks up.
That same stretch has a second signal telling the cars that they can go 15mph, but it is being ignored right now because only half the cars operating on the line can see it.
On Thursday, Metro's Operations committee is expected to approve a $400,000 contract with GE to update software on 26 cars that were brought over from the Green Line in 2003.
The new code will allow the P2000 cars to pick up the faster signal and should reduce travel time between the two stations to a little under three minutes. But why are two different signals being sent to the trains, rather than only one for 15 mph?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 21:31:45 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 16, 2009 21:31:45 GMT -8
Maybe they just need to run Windows Update.
So it costs $400,000 for a train to pick up the 2nd signal? Why not change the first signal to 15 MPH?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 17, 2009 0:28:08 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 17, 2009 0:28:08 GMT -8
Better is to quote the November Operations Committee item 43 Metro board report that explains in a little more detail: RECOMMENDATION
The Board finds that there is only a single source of procurement for this type of service to modify existing GE proprietary software on the P2000 light rail vehicle Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system to enable the P2000 vehicles to run on the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension at the correct, faster speed and immediate procurement is necessary in order to ensure the vehicles are capable of such operation to ensure on-time headway operation for the Eastside Extension. The Board hereby authorizes staff to negotiate a Not-to-Exceed contract value of $400,000 and award Contract No.OP39602485 to GE Transportation Systems.
RATIONALE
In 2003, Metro transferred twenty-six P2000 light rail vehicles (LRVs) from the Metro Green Line to the Pasadena Gold Line for use on the new rail line. The Gold Line Construction Authority then modified these vehicles to enable them to operate correctly with the cab signaling and related systems installed on the Gold Line. The modified cars have operated without major problems on the initial Gold Line.
The P2000 fleet running on the Gold Line and the new East Side extension is equipped with an ATP (Automatic Train Protection System) designed by GE signaling systems while the newly built P2550 fleet has the US&S ATP signaling package. The East Side 101 freeway aerial Structure (bridge) is designed with dual mode speed codes. The first code is a 100 Hz 10 rnph and the second speed code is a 250 Hz 15 mph. The P2550 fleet is designed to pick up the 250 Hz 15 rnph speed code over the aerial structure allowing the car to travel with speeds up to 15 mph. The P2000 fleet is only capable of picking up the 100 Hz 10 rnph speed code restricting the car speed to 10 mph. Operations estimates a 33% reduced travel time if the P2000 are modified to pick up the 250 Hz 15 mph speed code similar to the P2550 fleet. Still don't know why one speed code is only 10 mph.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 17, 2009 9:01:25 GMT -8
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 17, 2009 9:01:25 GMT -8
Maybe they just need to run Windows Update. So it costs $400,000 for a train to pick up the 2nd signal? Why not change the first signal to 15 MPH? I'm telling ya. I know a few programmers who would would kill for that kind of money.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 17, 2009 23:19:16 GMT -8
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 17, 2009 23:19:16 GMT -8
BTW, if the locals want gates at 1st/Indiana and 3rd/Indiana, I see no problem with that. Otherwise, people stopping their cars on the tracks are going to cause train delays. 1st/Indiana is like Washington/Long Beach Blvd on the Blue Line and 3rd/Indiana is like Flower/Washington; in the case of the Blue Line, neither have had crossing gates for 19 years and there isn't too much of a problem with cars and the Blue Line train at those sections where the rail line turns into another street (although most Washington Blvd Blue Line accidents happen on the intermediate intersections where the rail runs straight).
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 18, 2009 8:47:46 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 18, 2009 8:47:46 GMT -8
1st/Indiana is like Washington/Long Beach Blvd on the Blue Line and 3rd/Indiana is like Flower/Washington; in the case of the Blue Line, neither have had crossing gates for 19 years and there isn't too much of a problem with cars and the Blue Line train at those sections where the rail line turns into another street (although most Washington Blvd Blue Line accidents happen on the intermediate intersections where the rail runs straight). The geometry of 1st/Indiana is fundamentally different from Washington/Long Beach. 1st/Indiana is a full intersection, unlike Washington/Long Beach, which is a T-intersection. Also, 1st/Indiana includes a street (First Street) that turns at the intersection, unlike the curve on Washington, which happens away from the intersection. Also, Washington is a very wide boulevard. First and Indiana, OTOH, are much smaller streets, with much less visibility than at Washington/Long Beach. Similarly, 3rd/Indiana is geometrically different from Washington/Flower. Flower is a one-way street, greatly simplifying the options available to drivers and thus reducing the chances of collision. There are no turns allowed from Washington onto Flower. 3rd Street at Indiana, OTOH, allows both left-turns and right-turns across the tracks onto Indiana. These differences in intersection geometry make a real difference. In both cases, the Indiana intersections are more complicated, and thus more potentially confusing, than those on Washington Blvd. Add to this the fact that Indiana is an S-curve through a dense neighborhood, adjacent to a ped-oriented commercial strip and a school. These differences do not make the Gold Line unsafe. But they do suggest that extra precautions, like gates, might be necessary to help drivers avoid confusion and prevent low-speed accidents at those intersections. I think Darrell's analogy to Mission Station in So Pasadena is more apt. They are similar in that in both instances, trains pass through an odd intersection through a neighborhood. And in that case, the gates help provide clarity on where cars should stop to avoid the tracks.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 19, 2009 13:19:16 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 19, 2009 13:19:16 GMT -8
Lengthy but very interesting discussion about the speed of the Eastside extension:
Real food for thought. Politicians run Transit Authorities. Their fears and Phobias determine policy and speeds. akw
Subj: Need for speed not a priority for metro planners What a way to run a railroad. Can we and should we learn from Tom Fitzgerald of Pittsburg?
Alan Fishel
From: on Tennyson Subject: Need for speed not a priority for metro planners
STREET RAILWAY SPEED
When I was working for Pittsburgh Railways, old Tom Fitzgerald ran the system for 25 years.
In 1938 he bought a PCC car, tested it and bought 99 more. To prevent old cars from delaying
the speed of the new ones he speeded up the old ones against Westinghouse recommendations
thus overheating the motors but making things "go". His safety committee came to him and worried
that the speedier cars were having so many fender-benders that they must slow them down. Mr. Fitz-
gerald said "We can't slow them down. We have to pay off the mortgage on the new cars by having six
of them replace seven old low cars..We need the 12 % added revenue that the new cars bring in with
faster trips. DAMN THE TORPEDOS AND FULL SPEED AHEAD.
It did not take too long for hot rodders to learn they should not try to beat street cars a the intersections.
Pittsburgh would put a time study man on the car with a stop watch and a clip board to time every move-
ment of fhe operator. To prevent union men working slow, the assigned motorman was put in the front
passenger seat to observe and complain and the Route Foreman ran the car in service as fast as he safely
could. If he broke a rule or ran a signal, the operator could write him up. Only Detroit had faster operation.
With City ownership, they were hard to sue so they would open the door to let people off before the car was
fully stopped, and they would accelerate when the last boarding passenger got his first foot on the step.
Detroit was nerve wracking but they came within 1 mlle per hour of Market Frankford subway elevated speed
in Philadelphia. You never know what you can do until you try. Pittsburgh sometimes came in second on safety
after Toronto back when Toronto was first rate. E d T e n n y s o n
> In the days of PCC cars, the Los Angeles transit system had some of the fastest running on city streets that could be found anywhere. The same was true for Baltimore and Pittsburgh. Now with "modern" light rail cars, the operation on Howard Street in Baltimore is torture and it looks like the creepy crawl will affect the new Gold Line extension to East Los Angeles as well. So much for progress. > > Frank > > From: Clark F Morris > > Subject: Need for speed not a priority for metro planners > > > True and the top theoretical speed of the Gold Line is 55 mph (too > slow if the line is to be extended as fare as some want and if the > stops on that extension are far enough apart). However, the > willingness of transit planners to accept slow sections and pokey > running where cars normally pass the trains even on higher speed > sections is one of my gripes. There are 30 mph sections on the > Spadina Subway in Toronto. Yes slower does reduce wear and tear but > when a LRT on a viaduct isn't as fast as the traffic in the street, > something is wrong. > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:25:19 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >Taking nothing away from Berlin's S-Bahn, comparing its TOP speed to the LA Gold Line's AVERAGE speed appears to be a bit unfair, if not out-and-out verbal sleight-of-hand. > > > >From: clietwiler1 > >Subject: Need for speed not a priority for metro planners > > > > > >Need for speed not a priority for metro > >planners > > > >November 16, 10:47 PMLA Energy Policy ExaminerAlexander Lennartz > > > > > >Slow poke > >East LA celebrated the opening of the of the Gold Line extension on November > >15th with a celebration that included mariachis, free rides for all and an > >official visit from the mayor. While bringing this line into service is a > >commendable step in creating a more integrated transport network to the area, > >the line already lacked an instrumental component for success upon its > >inception: speed. > > > >Out of all the facts in all the articles written about this new light rail > >service, one sticks out. According to Metro’s official blog thesource.net, the > >average speed of the train is a mere 13.9 miles per hour. The Gold Line > >was already the slowest train this correspondent has ever ridden (bring some > >Dostoevsky if you want to get from Pasadena to Union Station, you will have > >plenty of time to read) and it seems no effort was made to cut travel times with > >the extension. The speed is on par with local buses which should be embarrassing > >when the stop and go conditions of bus rides are factored in. > > > >Here is a small list of comparisons to demonstrate how slow the Gold Line > >is: > > > > > > Sprinter Usain Bolt hits a top speed of 27.45 when in full stride (2x the > > Gold Line’s speed). > > Lance Armstrong can ride his bike over 40 mph (3x the Gold Line's > > speed). > > In competition with other trains and not people running or biking, the > > gulf is incredibly wide. The Berlin S-Bahn can hit 62 mph en > > route (more than 4x as fast as the Gold Line). > >Due to this speed issue, the Gold Line extension will be regarded as pretty > >unspectacular, furthering public lukewarm feelings towards mass transit. A row > >was started when longtime Eastside politician Gloria Molina called the line > >substandard a few weeks back, citing safety issues. Representative Molina was > >quoted as saying, "We all struggled so hard > >to get this into our community now, at the end of the day, I feel like I'm being > >shortchanged on the issues of integrity, safety and confidence." > > > >She does have a point that cost cutting took precedence over quality and the > >city tried to do this on the cheap by building the line as a light rail system > >instead of a subway. The short term saving will eventually lost in the millions > >of minutes riders lose annually in transit. Wasting people’s time wastes > >people’s productivity. The maxim of time is money should be taken into > >consideration. Less travel time = higher ridership. Trains need to equal or beat > >travel times set by cars in order to be an attractive proposition. In order to > >do so they need to be much faster. > > > >All eyes should now be on the Westside Expo Line which is set to begin > >construction in 2010. Angelenos need to demand not > >just a train, but a fast train up to world standards. The speed issues needs to > >be addressed and resolved for mass transit to flourish in LA. > > > >[photo by fredcamino] > > > >URL is: > > > >http://www.examiner.com/x-13823-LA-Energy-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d16-Need-for-speed-not-a-priority-for-metro-planners > >
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 19, 2009 21:28:47 GMT -8
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 19, 2009 21:28:47 GMT -8
But I hope they can speed up on the bridge over the freeway, sooner. I do not understand why 30 mph would not be possible. Is the turn really that tight, or the grade that steep? Yes, unfortunately, the turn is that tight. Pictured below is the alignment of the overpass over the Santa Ana Freeway. Note the tight curve of radius 210 feet and the very tight curve of radius 120 feet: The maximum speed at which a train can pass through a curve depends both on the curve radius and the track superelevation. 6 inches is considered the typical maximum allowable superelevation, so I will assume 6 inch superelevation was used on the overpass. The following table is from the Transportation Research Board's " Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit": You can see that the maximum allowable speed through a 210' curve is 20 MPH and the maximum allowable speed through a 120' curve is 15 MPH. It is now quite clear why the speed on the overpass will forever be limited to 15 MPH. This is particularly upsetting because a faster overpass would have been possible. I crunched the numbers to maximize the overpass curve radii and travel speeds and found the following overpass to have been possible: This option would have maximized the curve radii to 250 feet by placing the section of tangent track in the median of the freeway. This arrangement would have allowed for speeds of 25 MPH and would have reduced travel time on this segment by 40%. I would certainly like for someone with Metro to justify the as-built slow overpass...
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 19, 2009 22:42:28 GMT -8
Post by masonite on Nov 19, 2009 22:42:28 GMT -8
Can't it go 15 mph around that first curve and then speed up to 20 mph for the rest of it including the second curve? Seems inefficient to have to go 15 mph for the whole thing when only a small section requires the 15 mph.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 19, 2009 23:06:50 GMT -8
Post by Tony Fernandez on Nov 19, 2009 23:06:50 GMT -8
Justin, that's great work, but I think it could have been even more efficient than that since it looks like you assumed that you needed a part of the overpass to be parallel to the 101. If it was slightly diagonal with respect to the 101 then it could be even faster. But I'm just basing that on looks and I don't know any other constraints that there may have been.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 20, 2009 20:30:33 GMT -8
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 20, 2009 20:30:33 GMT -8
Can't it go 15 mph around that first curve and then speed up to 20 mph for the rest of it including the second curve? Seems inefficient to have to go 15 mph for the whole thing when only a small section requires the 15 mph. I would agree that 20 MPH should be allowed for the tangent track and the larger curve. Justin, that's great work, but I think it could have been even more efficient than that since it looks like you assumed that you needed a part of the overpass to be parallel to the 101. If it was slightly diagonal with respect to the 101 then it could be even faster. But I'm just basing that on looks and I don't know any other constraints that there may have been. I initially also expected the optimum path to be a diagonal path. The shortest distance between the two abutments is indeed a straight diagonal line. Yet, curving onto a diagonal path "sooner" from each end would require smaller curve radii. Any gains from a shorter path would be more than compensated for by slower overall speed.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 22, 2009 23:11:06 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 22, 2009 23:11:06 GMT -8
According to the table at docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/General_order/1295.htm it sounds like Metro did the bare minimum in Pasadena and East LA. If only they had made the Gold Line street running in Pasadena, there would be no gates and we could be done with these pointless accusations of transit racism. Will they shut up when the Expo Line is running in the street in Santa Monica? I hope so.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 23, 2009 7:59:54 GMT -8
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 23, 2009 7:59:54 GMT -8
Will they shut up when the Expo Line is running in the street in Santa Monica? I hope so. Santa Monica council themselves wanted street-running trains like those in Long Beach with the Blue Line. Thinking that's it's "pedestrian enhancing". Great, now we have to deal with a trolley system for the last .75 mile of Expo. This portion should have been built as a subway west of Lincoln. Not only do we need reasonable safety on our light rail lines, but speed!!! Ironic thing is I bet there would be more pedestrian usage if it acted as a subway and not a light rail. Look at the other Metro rail stations and see where the highest boardings are...
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 23, 2009 11:55:25 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 23, 2009 11:55:25 GMT -8
Look at the other Metro rail stations and see where the highest boardings are... Look where the highest density is. The fact that it's heavy rail has something to do with it, but the density probably has more to do with it.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 23, 2009 13:14:56 GMT -8
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 23, 2009 13:14:56 GMT -8
Look where the highest density is. The fact that it's heavy rail has something to do with it, but the density probably has more to do with it. Agreed. There's some good density near the Promenade, right? We're creating another "Transit Mall" station like we have at Pine avenue. Imagine if the Blue Line zipped between the PCH station and Pine Avenue/Transit Center as a straight underground line instead of traveling at-grade at a high density area? The Expo Line will be straight to Colorado, but should have been a subway for the last .75 miles. It's just Transit Mall all over again. Slow.....
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 23, 2009 14:20:21 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 23, 2009 14:20:21 GMT -8
Street running or not, the line will have very high ridership for light rail, much more than the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 23, 2009 14:37:26 GMT -8
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 23, 2009 14:37:26 GMT -8
At least the Expo line will be straight (right?) There are three make that four reasons the Blue Line is slow in Downtown LB: 1) 35 mph max speed 2) No signal priority 3) No less than 4 stations about 1/4 to 1/3 mile apart 4) Tight loop on the street, requiring 4 separate 10 mph turns
Only the first two problems are actually related to street running, and only the first is unsolvable without a subway. If the line was double-tracked down Long Beach Blvd for that last 1/2 mile, and was given 100% signal priority by the City of Long Beach, it could be a few minutes faster. A subway down Pacific from Willow on south would be even faster, but would be rather expensive.
If Santa Monica makes sure that trains get green lights at every intersection, and with the current route plans and station spacing, it won't be so bad.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 23, 2009 23:11:33 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 23, 2009 23:11:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 24, 2009 0:54:15 GMT -8
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 24, 2009 0:54:15 GMT -8
Spokker, I thought you were suggesting automated light rail.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 24, 2009 9:14:11 GMT -8
Post by JerardWright on Nov 24, 2009 9:14:11 GMT -8
Look where the highest density is. The fact that it's heavy rail has something to do with it, but the density probably has more to do with it. Agreed. There's some good density near the Promenade, right? We're creating another "Transit Mall" station like we have at Pine avenue. Imagine if the Blue Line zipped between the PCH station and Pine Avenue/Transit Center as a straight underground line instead of traveling at-grade at a high density area? The Expo Line will be straight to Colorado, but should have been a subway for the last .75 miles. It's just Transit Mall all over again. Slow..... Because between PCH and Transit Mall, it would have by-passed; Anaheim 5th St 1st St Anaheim and 5th Street stations are the busiest of the Long Beach Blue Line loop. So we sacrifice ridership for speed in this case.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 24, 2009 11:46:08 GMT -8
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 24, 2009 11:46:08 GMT -8
Agreed. There's some good density near the Promenade, right? We're creating another "Transit Mall" station like we have at Pine avenue. Imagine if the Blue Line zipped between the PCH station and Pine Avenue/Transit Center as a straight underground line instead of traveling at-grade at a high density area? The Expo Line will be straight to Colorado, but should have been a subway for the last .75 miles. It's just Transit Mall all over again. Slow..... Because between PCH and Transit Mall, it would have by-passed; Anaheim 5th St 1st St Anaheim and 5th Street stations are the busiest of the Long Beach Blue Line loop. So we sacrifice ridership for speed in this case. Not necessarily. First, Anaheim is before the LB loop and second 1st and 5th would probably be combined or moved to accommodate the greatest number of passengers. Additionally, a certain amount of those passengers are from bus transfers. Bus routes would be alterned to interface with said station(s). Secondly, I'm not sure of the exact formula but for every minute of travel saved you GAIN however many passengers.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 24, 2009 13:30:44 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 24, 2009 13:30:44 GMT -8
Speed isn't the only determinant of ridership. Also, faster usually equals higher costs.
|
|
davek
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Speed
Nov 24, 2009 14:51:18 GMT -8
Post by davek on Nov 24, 2009 14:51:18 GMT -8
I rode the eastside extension for the first time today and found it absurdly slow. Reminded me of the problems on the Pasadena route at first- constant braking, creeping around curves, too long in the stations. These can be fixed, but the lack of stoplight synchronizing is troubling. It simply may not be possible to have a fast light rail where so much of it is on a city street subject to traffic stops. At the very least, though, it needs to run faster on the bridge and in the tunnels.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 24, 2009 15:04:19 GMT -8
Post by Tony Fernandez on Nov 24, 2009 15:04:19 GMT -8
Yeah I can't understand why it's so slow over the bridge and through the east portal.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 25, 2009 9:39:21 GMT -8
Post by JerardWright on Nov 25, 2009 9:39:21 GMT -8
Because between PCH and Transit Mall, it would have by-passed; Anaheim 5th St 1st St Anaheim and 5th Street stations are the busiest of the Long Beach Blue Line loop. So we sacrifice ridership for speed in this case. Not necessarily. First, Anaheim is before the LB loop and second 1st and 5th would probably be combined or moved to accommodate the greatest number of passengers. Additionally, a certain amount of those passengers are from bus transfers. Bus routes would be alterned to interface with said station(s). Secondly, I'm not sure of the exact formula but for every minute of travel saved you GAIN however many passengers. That generally depends on how the route functions and who gets on and off and where they continue. If a good percentage of the stops/stations generate foot traffic directly to a destination, that will have to be adjusted for that. If there are bus transfers that tie into the stations, we have to be careful in not spacing the stops too far apart, because whatever time/speed advantage those patrons have are now gone, because the bus will take a slower time than even the at-grade LRT to make the connection because of the longer trip it now have to take, the point I'm making here is that it's not always 1-to-1 proportion of faster speed, more ridership. In addition, to spend over $300M/mile to save all of one-two minutes running time when simply adding the signal priority at key intersections would do a better job to solve the speed problem. Let's save the subway for when the line is over capacity here.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 25, 2009 12:12:58 GMT -8
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 25, 2009 12:12:58 GMT -8
In addition, to spend over $300M/mile to save all of one-two minutes running time when simply adding the signal priority at key intersections would do a better job to solve the speed problem. Let's save the subway for when the line is over capacity here. If it did cost $300M/mile then that 1.8 mile tunnel would have consumed 60% of the project budget. Yet, that's not the case. Total construction cost including design and construction of the two underground stations was ~$300M for the 1.8 miles (not including professional services). And it continues to amaze me you don't see the contradiction in your statement, or rather expect people to generally overlook it. First you express concern about the "high cost" of grade separation, as though you're an advocate of fiscal responsibility. Then in the next breath you say lets wait until we're over capacity to then build something entirely new, like that's fiscally responsible. The life of these projects are 100 years. When will it be over-capacity in 20? What company in this world could sell a product as being suitable for a certain period of time and only have it deliver 1/5th that amount and not be royally sued and end up on the FBI's scam list?!!!! And this is to say nothing of the additional costs of building at-grade which are numerous, and have been stated here and other places repeatedly. I say again, it seems like the at-grade advocates always fail to recognize that these systems have to interact with people and operate within existing environments, let alone meet a regional objective that goes beyond having pretty pictures of trains going across the street and the option of hoping on the train every now and then for a joy-ride. Again, as I've said before, if you're looking for quick cheap fixes you need to join the Bus Riders Union and start advocating for busways crisscrossing the city. It would have all the adverse traffic impacts and system limitations of at-grade rail at a fraction of the cost. But you can't make such contradictory arguments (resting your hat on capacity) and expect to be taken seriously when everyone knows it doesn't have the capacity to meet the needs over the life of the project. The only people who buy it are those who care not about transportation or transit ridership, but solely/primarily about redevelopment around station locations and need an excuse for parking variances/density increases. And regarding your signal priority suggestion - priority already exists on the corridor, and still it travels at half the speed of grade separated rail. And regarding the averse impacts of that priority, read the reports on the LA Streetblogs about the delays to cross-pedestrian traffic at particular intersections along the Eastside corridor. It wasn't like that before. It was necessary to take from cross traffic to give to the train and parallel vehicular traffic and additional turning movements necessary to compensate for the changes in roadway geometry. There's no creating "NEW TIME." I mean seriously I wonder what the thought process must be like for that at-grade advocates. Because based on your statements it seems like it goes something like: if we didn't have to bother with the people who have to walk across the tracks, the drivers who drive across the tracks, the transportation needs of the residents or businesses that line the corridor or the regional in general we can make this work! And seriously some wonder why the majority of those who live in the community and are impacted by the projects aren't buying it.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 25, 2009 13:47:51 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 25, 2009 13:47:51 GMT -8
The Eastside Extension as it exists now cost $898 million to build, or $149 million per mile.
Using your figures it cost $166 million per mile to build the underground section. If they built the entire thing underground it would have cost roughly $999 million for the six mile subway. That's only about $100 million more. Surely, $100 million is a small price to pay to put an entire rail line underground.
So, the question is, are your figures correct? What's missing here?
Surface light rail costs anywhere from $20 million to $80 million per mile. So either Damien is low-balling the cost of the tunnel or Metro got seriously ripped off on the street-running sections.
By the way, Seattle is building an underground light rail extension for $600 million a mile.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 25, 2009 14:11:10 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 25, 2009 14:11:10 GMT -8
Hm, The Source says, "Not discussed much in the lead-up to the opening was the issue of engineering. The Gold Line includes twin 1.7-mile-long tunnels under Boyle Heights. The tunnels cost $248 million and were built quickly; mining began on Feb. 23, 2006, and concluded on Dec. 8, 2006 — a span of 289 calendar days." So 248/1.7 = 146 million per mile to build light rail tunnels. Extrapolating from that, if we had build the entire thing underground, it should have cost 146*6=$876 million, less than what it actually cost for primarily street-running light rail. So something is definitely missing here. Perhaps that tunnel figure doesn't include labor or something. Maybe it's just the cost to do the tunnels only, and not the train systems that go into it. I don't know.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 25, 2009 15:02:03 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 25, 2009 15:02:03 GMT -8
Reprising what I posted 9/18/09, here are capital cost categories from the Eastside Gold Line Final Supplemental EIS/EIR, Table 5-1, Year-of-Expenditure Dollars in Millions for LRT Option B (approximately what they finally built): Construction and Procurement Guideways - $210.9 Yards and Shops - $6.3 Systems - $74.1 Stations - $97.2 LRT vehicles and buses - $113.3 Special Conditions - $68.0 Right-of-Way - $37.9 Subtotal - $607.7 Professional Services - $156.3 Project Contingency - $62.3 Total Cost - $826.3 If we add everything under Construction except Vehicles and Right-of-Way, plus Professional Services, the total is $612.8M [corrected]. If most but not all of the Professional Services is under the contractor, it matches the Eastside LRT Constructors March, 2004 design-build contract amount of $586.8M. One would expect the tunnel section is responsible for the majority of that contract amount. Now add a substantial inflation figure for projects like the Regional Connector or Crenshaw Corridor that are built a decade later.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 25, 2009 15:28:02 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 25, 2009 15:28:02 GMT -8
But The Source said that the tunnels cost $248 million. That seems pretty cheap for tunnels, especially considering Seattle is paying $600 million per mile for their underground light rail extension.
I'm just trying to figure out how much it costs per mile to put light rail underground, and your figures don't show that.
|
|