|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 19, 2018 9:12:24 GMT -8
Based on the rendering it looks like San Jose is doing a large station excavation equivalent to a building footprint, probably to meet emergency egress capacity requirements.
But that is adjacent to the street, not a street excavation, which is a huge difference in utilities and disruption to the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 19, 2018 19:03:04 GMT -8
Based on the rendering it looks like San Jose is doing a large station excavation equivalent to a building footprint, probably to meet emergency egress capacity requirements. But that is adjacent to the street, not a street excavation, which is a huge difference in utilities and disruption to the community. The packet for VTA's board meeting has a lot of information: vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/bod_040518_packet.pdf  |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 19, 2018 22:24:42 GMT -8
Based on the rendering it looks like San Jose is doing a large station excavation equivalent to a building footprint, probably to meet emergency egress capacity requirements. But that is adjacent to the street, not a street excavation, which is a huge difference in utilities and disruption to the community. The packet for VTA's board meeting has a lot of information: vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/bod_040518_packet.pdfGood stuff, thanks. Looks like vTA went to Barcelona to visit line 9 and consult with the people involved in it. It seems like single bore was a slam dunk in most technical merit cases, meeting or exceeding the twin bore merits. While there will be jet grouting for twin bore at every cross passageway, the single bore doesn’t require it because the cross passageways are within the tunnel. There will be some jet grouting around station areas for single bore it sounds like. The single bore allows two crossovers, rather than one, that’s great from an operational POV. It looks as though they run in parallel between stations, at stations, one track goes up slightly and the other track goes down slightly so that a stacked platform occurs. They anticipate less tunnel maintenance, because not cutting into the tunnel for every cross passageway means fewer leak points created and thus fewer leaks over the tunnel lifetime. They estimate 24 months of utility relocation will be avoided. Metro Marta and other major transit agencies were convened in a panel to study single bore and issue a recommendation, the panel agreed single bore was superior in every way but recommended that they do double bore because waiting for these additional EIRs might endanger federal funding. VTA ignored their recommendation and applied for and received a three month extension waiver to finish these EIRs. But it’s encouraging because all these agencies now have some experience with the benefits of single bore. We should all be pushing metro to pursue single bore for the sepulveda line . |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 19, 2018 22:25:49 GMT -8
Does anyone know why the single bore has to be so deep? Why not just 40 feet deep instead of 80 feet? Is it a water table thing ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Apr 19, 2018 23:57:32 GMT -8
VTA estimated that the upfront cost of the double bore could be $70M more than single bore, and the operating cost of the single bore could be 2.8% more than double bore, so there were some pros and cons for each method. There was a lot of discussion about lost business from station box construction; that could have been the deciding factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 22, 2018 3:31:25 GMT -8
Does anyone know why the single bore has to be so deep? Why not just 40 feet deep instead of 80 feet? Is it a water table thing ? According to the Boring Company it should be two tunnel diameters below the surface to minimize surface disruption. www.boringcompany.com/faq/If you Google 'TBM "two tunnel diameters"', it seems to be standard practice to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 23, 2018 6:08:49 GMT -8
Does anyone know why the single bore has to be so deep? Why not just 40 feet deep instead of 80 feet? Is it a water table thing ? According to the Boring Company it should be two tunnel diameters below the surface to minimize surface disruption. www.boringcompany.com/faq/If you Google 'TBM "two tunnel diameters"', it seems to be standard practice to do this. Interesting, I’d love to see the math supporting such a linear rule of thumb given how the area of excavation increases (exponential curve), I would expect that rule of thumb (two tunnel diameters) to follow a similar curve beyond an inflection point. So probably if 6 meter tunnel has to be 12 meters underground, perhaps a 8 meter tunnel only has to be 14 meters underground instead of sixteen to achieve the same effect. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 7, 2018 19:56:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 7, 2018 21:44:50 GMT -8
Since this is a phase one, we need to think about maintenance facilities. That means a lot of these concepts are not actually possible, they're just deliberately leading people on with fantasy options.
there are only two options, use the Van Nuys line proposed maintenance facility as well or use the Red/Purple line facility (concept 7). Realistically, this means that concepts 1 and 2, are not being considered, they're just being put forth to mollify all the very sensible and right thinking people who understand that light rail is insufficient for this corridor.
Concept 6 is extremely exciting from a transit point of view because it would provide an additional one seat CBD service from the valley and from LAX (and also to the sub CBD in Century City), and indicates (being west of the 405) that metro thinks the superior routing in phase two is west of the 405, that's kind of amazing because there's not a continuous north south arterial surface street between Lincoln and the 405, (while Sepulveda does serve this purpose in parallel to the 405 on the east side). And once phase two opens, that nebulous goal of a one seat ride from LAX to LA is accomplished.
The big problem with Concept 6 is it will have significantly lower ridership, since it misses a station at UCLA campus
One thing to consider is that the VA is a useless stub end station right now (especially since most of the vietnam vets will be dead by the time the line opens), and perhaps it might be superior to lean into the total uselessness of the VA station and make it a true stub end and see if the north-south branching proposed above is possible from the Westwood station, There should be sufficient turn radius before the 405 to get a north east ward turn, but I think that might force a suboptimal UCLA station on the west side of Pauley Pavilion (under the tennis courts). but it would still create a UCLA station.
Another possibility to enhance concept 6 would be to shorten the Van Nuys line and have concept 6 extend to the metrolink station. This would potentially do an enormous amount to alleviate traffic on I405 because it would provide non transit users commuting through the 405 all along the metrolink corridor with a single transfer transit option to access UCLA, Century City, West La and LAX. People from Ventura or even Santa Barbara would be able to use transit to access LAX.
Concept 2 is clearly a joke on Metro's part, they put a freaking tunnel under a reservoir on their official map, and several miles of aerial? they're not even trying to have it taken seriously.
Metro points out in the additional documents at the Source that light rail can be "Three or Four" car trains, with a capacity of 405-540. Them bothering to include a "four car" option this early on means that their internal numbers indicate that there is no way in hell a three car light rail can provide sufficient capacity for the demand for this corridor.
And if their numbers indicate that, then I would bet that the 540 number is probably the floor of capacity they need to meet existing (much less future) demand.
Along those lines Monorail is clearly included to be discarded because of its lower capacity (480 per train, that's in the dead zone below the 540 number), but the rubber tired thing may be pursued further, particularly as it has the most capacity and can be built at grade.
Concept 4, indicates to me, with it's branch to sepulveda/orange line, that Metro is considering a "phase three" branched service that would go further west and then provide additional north/south service through the valley, possibly on Reseda, one seat ride Porter Ranch through the sepulveda pass. This indicates they are probably looking at 4 tracking from the get go. being able to 4 track through the pass, would also allow them with light rail to have capacity of 810 (three car set), or 1080 (four car set).
If they are planning on 4 tracking that means they are thinking wider bore tunneling. with two levels, two trains per level.
I think that will be the plan, wide bore tunneling through the pass from the Orange Line to Westwood, probably normal dual bore tunnels south to LAX and on the branch to Orange Line Sepulveda.
Note that if they did such a thing, theoretically they could combine concept 4 and 7 and then the Reseda line, and Van Nuys line could interline and use say the top level of the tunnel for light rail, and the Purple line branched service could use the bottom level of the tunnel.
Another reason to use wider bore tunneling is jet grouting. They have to do jet grouting at every cross passageway location for the purple line. wider bore tunnels have sufficient space to provide emergency egress protected walkways, and thus do not need any cross passageways built, they only require jet grouting at either end of the station.
That means metro could tunnel under the billionaires without ever having to engineer jet grouting construction equipment through all 10 miles of the canyons of bel aire, they could do it without making a peep. It will still be opposed, but if you're not looking at twelve years of heavy construction in the manstions area and you're also not looking at the environmental destruction of twelve years of jet grouting throughout eight miles of undeveloped canyon country, well. damn, that would be quite an advantage to avoid all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 8, 2018 7:24:09 GMT -8
4-tracking with both LRT and HRT is a solution I've never thought of before. Kind of brilliant considering the interlining possibilities, though. I would say it also offers the possibility of one service acting as an express service, but the only intermediate stations are likely to be at UCLA and Ventura anyway, and every train should really stop at both. And I agree that missing an opportunity for an easy UCLA station is a huge downside of the 6 alignment.
... you *could* separate the HRT and LRT lines once you're south of the hills, having LRT hit UCLA and connect with westwood and sepulveda, while the HRT veers west and connects with the purple line... but that adds to the price tag quite a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 7:54:42 GMT -8
Thinking about this, concept 4 is basically the “let’s go la “ concept of planning for and providing branched service (current and future) for multiple valley lines to use the sepulveda tunnels
And concept 6 is basically the alon levy concept of branched HRT service such that every HRT line connects to the CBD.
I am almost positive we will get the following:
4 track LRT in a large single bore tunnel (point of comparison, Godard base tunnel) providing branched service in the valley as in concept four but terminating at Wilshire Westwood in a station ( and turnback facility ) and large transfer plaza under parking lot 36. This will provide the Van Nuys line with continuous service from Sylmar to Wilshire and give both metrolink Lines a single transfer to west la which would dramatically impact SOV use on interstate 405.
A purple line extension from the VA to LAX/Inglewood stadium that is west of interstate 405.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 7:59:43 GMT -8
And we don’t have to have a 4 track service, the Van Nuys line, being at grade, cannot have service greater than ten trains per hour (6 minute headways) this is why metro is planning branched service to sepulveda orange line, they want ten trains per hour on the branch as well so that service through the sepulveda pass is twenty trains per hour, three minute headways. Given the downhill grade increases stopping distance, that is probably the maximum headway
This would also possibly mean that they are considering the orange line rail conversion west of sepulveda /orange to feed the branched service, rather than service branching north south down a street like reseda.
That would presumably accelerate orange line rail conversion, but only for west of sepulveda .
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 8:22:26 GMT -8
Valley stations.
Branched sepulveda/Orange line service
Branched Van Nuys /Orange Line station
Van Nuys / “chandler”
Van Nuys / Ventura
Based on the source articles, this line is going to merit a station at Burbank and at magnolia
That’s expensive but “chandler” splits the difference. It’s approximately 1100 feet from both Burbank to chandler and from chandler to magnolia.
This station would be where the service branches, so even if you’re building a four car LRT platform, you still need extensive crossover space.
The largest station box (with crossovers ) on the purple line is about 1250 feet long.
If the station is centered at chandler we measure the distance from Albers to Weddington, and aha it is about 1235 feet long.
Therefore there will be a station box roughly centered at chandler with entrances around Albers and weddington which are each 400-500 feet from burbank and magnolia respectively.
This also suggests that from magnolia to the orange line will be cut and cover four track (0.9 miles cut and cover) with service branching perhaps through (or under) the proposed Van Nuys maintenance facility at Oxnard and Van Nuys and tunneling to the sepulveda branch with an extraction/launch pit orange line park and ride there.
Superior to tunneling for the sepulveda branch would be aerial light rail over the orange line, built on a pergola structure (like the high speed rail pergola) so that the orange line continues underneath, there is no SFR near the orange line for this segment, 1.14 miles, so it would be a really good option.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 8:51:36 GMT -8
Los Angeles stations
UCLA
Wilshire Westwood/ veteran (under parking lot 36)
This is assuming the LRT terminates here and the LAX service is built as a purple line extension.
Single bore deep tunnel to the valley so that construction activities through out UCLA are avoided. Station located roughly at Charles m young / sunset north of Paulette pavilion. Station shaft sunk into the soccer field north of the red center, ticket office to the rec center are the only buildings tunneled under on the UCLA campus.
Routing for a wider, shallower dual bore construction under UCLA may be damn near impossible (or insanely expensive) because existing extensive underground infrastructure on the campus.
A cruciform station underneath the purple line is probably a bad idea, Westwood’s streetgeometry north of Wilshire is bad for train curves, and there are skyscrapers on the south side of Wilshire. A platform entirely south of Wilshire at Westwood is possible but would entail more problems I think.
A launch / extraction pit and station under parking lot 36 makes more sense with a walkway to the Wilshire Westwood station. A cut and cover turnback facility route could even be built south down veteran for about 1200 feet to Wilkins, this would probably be better than trying to build under the purple line station at Westwood.
You could certainly build two more stations, one at Santa Monica/ veteran and one at expo sepulveda (or expo Westwood) if you want to try to create a transfer from Van Nuys line to expo line, but that would duplicate my proposed purple line extension south. And an extraction pit at either expo sepulveda or Westwood would be a big problem. Probably only possible to the the tbm out at sepulveda, but Elon has bought the buildings there for his pet project
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 8, 2018 8:52:34 GMT -8
Since this is a phase one, we need to think about maintenance facilities. That means a lot of these concepts are not actually possible, they're just deliberately leading people on with fantasy options. there are only two options, use the Van Nuys line proposed maintenance facility as well or use the Red/Purple line facility (concept 7). Realistically, this means that concepts 1 and 2, are not being considered, they're just being put forth to mollify all the very sensible and right thinking people who understand that light rail is insufficient for this corridor. Concept 2 is clearly a joke on Metro's part, they put a freaking tunnel under a reservoir on their official map, and several miles of aerial? they're not even trying to have it taken seriously. Unless I am missing something, Concept 1 and 2 connect with the Purple Line and thus would theoretically use the heavy rail maintenance facility Downtown. The Red/Purple Lines go under the McArthur Park Lake now. I believe the lake was drained when they did the tunneling as the tunnels are only a few feet under the lake. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 9:06:09 GMT -8
LAX purple line 11 mile, 8 station extension
Single bore tunnel=no station boxes built except at terminus, no utility relocation.
Stations at
Wilshire Barrington
Santa Monica / Bundy
Expo—pico—Olympic / Bundy
Venice-Washington / centinela
Centinela / Jefferson
Sepulveda / Howard Hughes
LAX—Aviation / 96th
PPP to Hollywood Park stadium complex so final station / extraction pit at
century / Prairie
Cut and cover turnback facility from prairie to Crenshaw.
(Possible station at century / Hawthorne)
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 9:40:36 GMT -8
Hah above I had a brain fart confusing barrington and Bundy, fixes it now
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 11:30:19 GMT -8
Since my proposed purple line extension is eleven miles, or 17,000 meters, that is too long a time to tunnel with a single TBM.
Launch/ extraction pits at
Santa Monica airport Bundy parking lots.
Manchester bellenca/portal parking lots/ rental cars
Hollywood Park
That would change it to a three mile tunnel drive from the VA to SM airport, a six mile drive to Manchester, and a two+ mile drive to Hollywood Park.
Three TBMs working simultaneously
There’s no getting around the long tunnel drive of phase one, through Sepulveda Pass, so that will have to make do with just one TBM
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 8, 2018 12:22:01 GMT -8
Concept 3. For the following:
--Connecting to the ESFV Van Nuys project - no HRT on the table for this important connection. LRT makes this a possibility.
--Option 6, aside from likely being enormously expensive, appears to eliminate the possibility of the Purple Line ever going west to Santa Monica. No, thanks.
--Option 5 is just a joke.
--Any HRT option will be even more expensive, which will limit how far we can build to begin with. So no to 1, 2, and 6 again.
--Option 4, though interesting, also misses the ESFV connection. What would be better: jogging to Sepulveda at Ventura, before going over the pass.
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by expo on Jun 8, 2018 12:47:49 GMT -8
Concept 3. For the following: --Connecting to the ESFV Van Nuys project - no HRT on the table for this important connection. LRT makes this a possibility. --Option 6, aside from likely being enormously expensive, appears to eliminate the possibility of the Purple Line ever going west to Santa Monica. No, thanks. --Option 5 is just a joke. --Any HRT option will be even more expensive, which will limit how far we can build to begin with. So no to 1, 2, and 6 again. --Option 4, though interesting, also misses the ESFV connection. What would be better: jogging to Sepulveda at Ventura, before going over the pass. Would HRT really be that much more expensive though? Both are going to have significant tunneling, and neither will have at-grade operations (at least in phase I), so the only difference is the technology itself. My understanding was that the cost difference is not significant for the rail technology itself. Agreed that any option that eliminates a future purple line extension to Santa Monica should be a nonstarter. |
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Jun 8, 2018 13:09:43 GMT -8
I agree with that Concept 3 looks best.
It would have been nice if they had documented capacity in terms of passengers per hour (or at least documented the minimum operable headway for each mode so that we could calculate for ourselves).
I have heard that there are headway constraints on tunnel systems like this, but I haven't heard the details or technical reasons. Does anybody have that info?
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Jun 8, 2018 13:13:37 GMT -8
As for claims that LRT couldn't possibly handle the potential demand, I don't think that's correct. Current travel through the Sepulveda Pass is ~400k per day, with only 2% transit mode share. If this project increases the transit share to 20%, and induced demand increases the throughput to 500k per day, that would equate to ~100k passengers per day through the tunnel. That demand could be served by 5-minute peak headways on a 4-car LRT.
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Jun 8, 2018 15:56:35 GMT -8
As for claims that LRT couldn't possibly handle the potential demand, I don't think that's correct. Current travel through the Sepulveda Pass is ~400k per day, with only 2% transit mode share. If this project increases the transit share to 20%, and induced demand increases the throughput to 500k per day, that would equate to ~100k passengers per day through the tunnel. That demand could be served by 5-minute peak headways on a 4-car LRT. The problem isn't with serving the total number of riders, it's the time distribution of those riders. 4 car trains with 5 minute peak headways would mean only 6,480 per hour per direction (540 per train * 12 trains per hour = 6,480). That's not going to be nearly enough during crush time. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 17:12:59 GMT -8
--Option 4, though interesting, also misses the ESFV connection. What would be better: jogging to Sepulveda at Ventura, before going over the pass. Option four connects to the ESFV same as option three and it also provides single ride service from sylmar to expo. The difference is that in option 4, a branched service is also sent to sepulveda/ Orange Line. These two branches will interline, so trains departing expo will have either an ESFV / sylmar destination or a sepulveda orange line destination. Since the ESFV has a peak headway of six minutes, the branched service means that the Sepulveda Pass will have service every three minutes, or 20 tph Option three could also provide 20 tph, but it would necessitate every other train terminating at sepulveda / Van Nuys. The branched service in option four also suggests that metro considers this service branch a future part of the orange line conversion to rail. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 17:16:43 GMT -8
Concept 3. For the following: --Connecting to the ESFV Van Nuys project - no HRT on the table for this important connection. LRT makes this a possibility. --Option 6, aside from likely being enormously expensive, appears to eliminate the possibility of the Purple Line ever going west to Santa Monica. No, thanks. --Option 5 is just a joke. --Any HRT option will be even more expensive, which will limit how far we can build to begin with. So no to 1, 2, and 6 again. --Option 4, though interesting, also misses the ESFV connection. What would be better: jogging to Sepulveda at Ventura, before going over the pass. Would HRT really be that much more expensive though? Both are going to have significant tunneling, and neither will have at-grade operations (at least in phase I), so the only difference is the technology itself. My understanding was that the cost difference is not significant for the rail technology itself. Agreed that any option that eliminates a future purple line extension to Santa Monica should be a nonstarter. If we use single bore like in San Jose, HRT construction costs should be mitigated and wouldn’t be more expensive than LRT. HRT cost premiums are in the utility relocation, and sub street station palaces. Each purple line station box costs approximately 500 million to build. The actual tunneling construction itself is not very expensive, comparatively, and HRT tunnel construction is indistinguishable from LRT tunnel construction. If the purple line turns south to connect to the expo line at Bundy, is that really so much worse a “to the sea” outcome than the purple line dead ending at the ocean? People have argued before that ridership drops off as you approach the terminus and this is partly why they’re not building it. Connecting LAX to the CBD as well as UCLA and century city seems a far superior ridership outcome for the purple line than terminating at the ocean. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 8, 2018 17:26:11 GMT -8
As for claims that LRT couldn't possibly handle the potential demand, I don't think that's correct. Current travel through the Sepulveda Pass is ~400k per day, with only 2% transit mode share. If this project increases the transit share to 20%, and induced demand increases the throughput to 500k per day, that would equate to ~100k passengers per day through the tunnel. That demand could be served by 5-minute peak headways on a 4-car LRT. The problem isn't with serving the total number of riders, it's the time distribution of those riders. 4 car trains with 5 minute peak headways would mean only 6,480 per hour per direction (540 per train * 12 trains per hour = 6,480). That's not going to be nearly enough during crush time. Yes, It’s both Time-and geographic distribution of riders, we will never have 100,000 riders neatly spaced throughout the day divided evenly between regions, we are more likely to see 30,000 riders heading south in the AM but only 15,000 riders coming north in the AM and reversed in the evening commute. And the other 10,000 riders in off peak. |
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Jun 9, 2018 23:15:23 GMT -8
"6,480 per hour per direction (540 per train * 12 trains per hour = 6,480)... That's not going to be nearly enough during crush time."
Based on what? 30 percent mode share? That's not realistic.
Current travel through the Sepulveda Pass is ~15,000 people peak direction trips per hour during the peak periods. If that volume increases to 20,000, the LRT capacity that you calculated would be enough to serve 32% on the travel demand.
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Jun 10, 2018 10:11:38 GMT -8
"6,480 per hour per direction (540 per train * 12 trains per hour = 6,480)... That's not going to be nearly enough during crush time." Based on what? 30 percent mode share? That's not realistic. Current travel through the Sepulveda Pass is ~15,000 people peak direction trips per hour during the peak periods. If that volume increases to 20,000, the LRT capacity that you calculated would be enough to serve 32% on the travel demand. Based on induced demand + a very high mode share. If there were no traffic on the 405 during peak hours you'd see way more than 15,000 people per hour. Plus, with the car congestion on this corridor, I don't think 30% is that unrealistic, especially considering the fact that this will be a heavy rail line (fast) connecting to a completed Purple line (fast) and the expo line on one end, and an improved orange line and a new east San Fernando valley light rail line on the other end. The transit connectivity here will be beyond anything we see in LA today outside of DTLA. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jun 10, 2018 15:01:47 GMT -8
As for claims that LRT couldn't possibly handle the potential demand, I don't think that's correct. Current travel through the Sepulveda Pass is ~400k per day, with only 2% transit mode share. If this project increases the transit share to 20%, and induced demand increases the throughput to 500k per day, that would equate to ~100k passengers per day through the tunnel. That demand could be served by 5-minute peak headways on a 4-car LRT. The problem isn't with serving the total number of riders, it's the time distribution of those riders. 4 car trains with 5 minute peak headways would mean only 6,480 per hour per direction (540 per train * 12 trains per hour = 6,480). That's not going to be nearly enough during crush time. What Culvercitylocke said above when he pointed out that the Branched service option whould have 3 minute headways through the Pass. If metro chooses the Branched Service connecting both the ESFVTC and the Orange Line, that is 20 trains running through the pass and using your algorithm that would be around 10,000 people who could be accommodated. Metro could run shorter trains on the Van Nuys line and have larger train sets terminate at the Orange Line Branch or something else. This isn't set in stone yet and there is plenty of time to influence Metro. My .2¢ is that either option 4 (the branched LRT line) or option 6 the Purple Line Extensions Extension would be best. But I still need to digest this news a bit more. the Purple Line Extensions Extension has a bit of a ring to it......but I'm not convinced this is the right path. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 10, 2018 17:51:14 GMT -8
The problem isn't with serving the total number of riders, it's the time distribution of those riders. 4 car trains with 5 minute peak headways would mean only 6,480 per hour per direction (540 per train * 12 trains per hour = 6,480). That's not going to be nearly enough during crush time. What Culvercitylocke said above when he pointed out that the Branched service option whould have 3 minute headways through the Pass. If metro chooses the Branched Service connecting both the ESFVTC and the Orange Line, that is 20 trains running through the pass and using your algorithm that would be around 10,000 people who could be accommodated. Metro could run shorter trains on the Van Nuys line and have larger train sets terminate at the Orange Line Branch or something else. This isn't set in stone yet and there is plenty of time to influence Metro. My .2¢ is that either option 4 (the branched LRT line) or option 6 the Purple Line Extensions Extension would be best. But I still need to digest this news a bit more. the Purple Line Extensions Extension has a bit of a ring to it......but I'm not convinced this is the right path. I think a purple line to lax and valley branched light rail through UCLA to Wilshire Westwood is the best of all worlds |
|
