|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 10, 2018 15:38:24 GMT -8
I'm skeptical that they'll actually be about to carry that out (politically), but that would be fantastic. I’m skeptical they’d be able to pull it off infrastructure wise. The current toll lanes on the 110 cost a couple hundred million and five years to build. That means they probably couldn’t implement the rollout of all the downtown feeder freeways and all the feeder roads for about twenty years. building out the infrastructure to implement the tolls is a good idea, but say implementing tolls on highway 101 just will divert thousands to interstate 5 or surface alternatives. A slow roll out will make congestion worse. Perhaps they could use license plate reading technology to scan everyone’s license plates thousands of times a day to figure out what on or off ramps you’re using or what surface roads you’re using and charge you a fee based on that. Good luck litigating that in court as given the immense fight against ticketing red light violaters that successfully said people breaking the law can’t be ticketed by camera evidence a camera based congestion pricing scheme would probably be on even shakier legal standing than the abandoned red light cameras. I’d expect that unless poor people get huge subsidies to pay their tolls for them and keep them driving, the political coalition against congestion pricing will be similar to the one that took down the housing bill. Poor people and super rich allying with environmentalists to defeat this. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 29, 2019 15:09:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 29, 2019 15:20:04 GMT -8
It's like Metro has been reading this thread... We got dedicated UCLA campus station, heavy rail, and West LA alignment option that doesn't follow the 405 waste zone.
Heavy rail option 3 AND Centinela alignment! This is the one to get behind. (edit: I'm ok with option 1 and Centinela as well... option 3 has extra station which explains the extra ridership but probably add more costs)
The purple line extension doesn't make any sense if the Sepulveda corridor is already heavy rail. So I'm guessing Metro included here as a throw away option to boost the Centinela option.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 29, 2019 15:28:41 GMT -8
Page 13-15 of the presentation is really damning... It shows why people here (and anyone that actually paid any attention) asked for ESFV and Sepulveda Pass to be studied together. Metro really f@cked up and I don't use swear words lightly.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 29, 2019 15:36:22 GMT -8
It's like Metro has been reading this thread... We got dedicated UCLA campus station, heavy rail, and West LA alignment option that doesn't follow the 405 waste zone. Heavy rail option 3 AND Centinela alignment! This is the one to get behind. (edit: I'm ok with option 1 and Centinela as well... option 3 has extra station which explains the extra ridership but probably add more costs) The purple line extension doesn't make any sense if the Sepulveda corridor is already heavy rail. So I'm guessing Metro included here as a throw away option to boost the Centinela option. Actually they think option 3 could be cheaper because they envision that segment until the Sepulveda Pass to be aerial, while the other heavy rail options are underground in that section. But if the community demands it to be underground, it probably will be more expensive than the other options. It’s possible some may get behind the new Purple Line extension option as it provides a 1-seat ride from downtown to LAX (okay, you need to connect to the people mover, so not exactly 1-seat). |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2019 16:40:08 GMT -8
It's like Metro has been reading this thread... We got dedicated UCLA campus station, heavy rail, and West LA alignment option that doesn't follow the 405 waste zone. Heavy rail option 3 AND Centinela alignment! This is the one to get behind. (edit: I'm ok with option 1 and Centinela as well... option 3 has extra station which explains the extra ridership but probably add more costs) The purple line extension doesn't make any sense if the Sepulveda corridor is already heavy rail. So I'm guessing Metro included here as a throw away option to boost the Centinela option. The purple line extension is my favorite thing here! that thing is my baby! But look at why it's included, because in the next analysis they're going to suggest: A REGIONAL CONNECTOR for the Purple line. 1. Select Expo Bundy for the Sepulveda HRT line 2. Get an extension for the purple line (phase 4!) from the VA to Expo Bundy 3. Interline the Purple line and the Sepulveda Line from Expo Bundy to LAX 4. Now you have TWO HRTs feeding the Airport and you have connected the Airport and the second HRT both to the Central Core! |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2019 16:46:16 GMT -8
I feel SOOO vindicated about all my calculations of LRT providing insufficient ridership demand, 133,000/day for HRT3, holy shit.
and 123,000/day for HRT1
HRT1 is going to win, because:
HRT2 is going to be more expensive and more tunneling and contain a heavier risk profile with it's diagonal tunnel to Sepulveda creating property easement acquisition issues. I assume this could only win if metro cannot figure out any reasonable budget way to build under the ESFV.
HRT3 is going to be cheaper but is going to draw most of the community opposition, plus it is an engineering nightmare (billions and billions of dollars), as anyone who has noted how snugly the mall, the 405, the 101 and sepulveda and ventura all are squashed together. Simply, I don't think there is any room anywhere to stage construction for aerial on this alignment.
MRT1 is to pacify the monorail nerds, but it simply will not perform in any analysis as well and will be dropped.
The other thing is that HRT1 will go more directly under the Bel Air golf Course, and the other 3 routes may have slightly less proper easement acquisition issues depending on the details of the routing under the billionaires.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2019 16:56:27 GMT -8
How do you build both the at grade ESFV and the below grade HRT? for HRT1?
There is only one way and it is also the cheapest and fastest construction metro could possibly embark upon for a subway.
A 30 foot wide, twenty foot deep, cut and cover box structure for the Subway, with a restored surface ready made for the LRT.
The advantages: A shallower station means faster transfers, particularly from the above grade metrolink station!
Cut and cover is the cheapest and fastest construction method for subways around the world.
No full mezzanines for stations, just go down a flight of stairs and be on the platform.
Van Nuys is at least 80 feet wide, this would provide 5 feet of buffer and 22.5 feet of traffic lanes on each side during construction.
You can relocate any utilties once for both projects, but maybe the sewers and water mains are not in the median and thus not requiring full relocation for a median cut and cover box structure.
Station palace construction at the station locations is much much worse for everyone, because you have side walk to sidewalk excavation, full utility relocation, and gargantuan caverns that take five years to excavate and five years to build out.
The big disadvantage is that in between the stations, you have construction impacts along the entire route, but those businesses are not going to reap the benefits of future stations.
EXCEPT! in this one instance they will, because they will be getting LRT stations, and would have to suffer similar construction impacts to cut and cover for that construction anyway.
This may be one place where it's feasible and the best option.
Metro just has to figure out a way to sever the overlap section of HRT1 as a separate phase so they can build the box structure for the future sepulveda line before the construction for the ESFV line needs to commence on that section of the ESFV.
Perhaps they could get a legislative assist for an expedited environmental review akin to the pro sports team stadiums exemptions?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2019 17:06:18 GMT -8
One thing to remember about tunneling.
Tunneling is expensive when it's under urban areas, delicate environments, and utilities such as the gold line tunnels running into the graveyard, the la brea tar pits and all the utilites under wilshire.
But when you're going under mountains (even mountains that are built upon) such as the sepulveda pass, tunneling should be significantly cheaper on a per mile basis, this is partly why the HSR tunnels under mountains are not expected to be as expensive per mile as any of the purple line tunnels.
The big question about tunneling under the mountains of sepulveda is ventilation and emergency egress. The purple line has a six year project of jet grouting every location of an emergency cross passageway exit under wilshire blvd, this is expensive and very disruptive and has to be done before tbms start. Doing something similar for deeper tunnels is absurd.
That means a bigger tunnel is probably needed, This would be an opportunity to do a 7-10 meter diameter tunnel, the disadvantage is that they have to be deeper, but it's going under a mountain it has to be deep, also it will be crossing under the purple line tunnels, so it has to be deep there as well. both of those things point to the possibility of a single large diameter tunnel from Van Nuys/Ventura to Wilshire/Westwood.
Given that both phase 3 and phase 2 of the purple line are opting for large diamter tunnel techniques (cut into the tunnel to build the station after the tunnel is built), I think this is going to be something that will be fairly seriously considered.
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by expo on Jan 29, 2019 17:15:03 GMT -8
The purple line extension is my favorite thing here! that thing is my baby! But look at why it's included, because in the next analysis they're going to suggest: A REGIONAL CONNECTOR for the Purple line. 1. Select Expo Bundy for the Sepulveda HRT line 2. Get an extension for the purple line (phase 4!) from the VA to Expo Bundy 3. Interline the Purple line and the Sepulveda Line from Expo Bundy to LAX 4. Now you have TWO HRTs feeding the Airport and you have connected the Airport and the second HRT both to the Central Core! The Purple Line extension to the airport is such a dogleg, there's no reason to build it. Transit lines should be relatively straight and direct; that line is anything but. If we really care about a direct airport to city center connection, there's an existing ROW along Slauson that could be used. But even then, city center to airport connections aren't that useful, everyday uses generate far more trips than occasional uses like trips to the airport. |
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 29, 2019 17:24:10 GMT -8
It makes no sense for sepulveda pass/purple line interlining to be off the table, if for no other reason than there needs to be a way to move trains between them, since there's nowhere they can build a maintenance facility between westwood and van nuys. Metro's probably just too embarrassed to admit they didn't provide for interlining in the current purple line plans and can't change it. I'm with others here that the pass line should diverge between VA and Westwood stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 29, 2019 17:59:20 GMT -8
There is plenty of land around LAX that can be acquired for a LAX HRT line but that's phase 2. The real question is phase 1 (SFV to Expo line)... They would probably have to rip up one of the Orange line parking lots to house the yard. But that will get NIMBY out in force.
So I concede that Metro will probably try to find an excuse to interline the two lines... perhaps accomplished with Bundy extension and new (temporary) terminal station for both Purple and Sepulveda lines that can be used to turn around trains both north and east.
But once we build phase 2 from Wilshire to LAX, I don't think there is any real reason to interline the operation. Unless we really believe LAX to Wilshire ridership will be double the ridership between Wilshire and SFV... seems unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 29, 2019 18:04:16 GMT -8
The purple line extension is my favorite thing here! that thing is my baby! But look at why it's included, because in the next analysis they're going to suggest: A REGIONAL CONNECTOR for the Purple line. 1. Select Expo Bundy for the Sepulveda HRT line 2. Get an extension for the purple line (phase 4!) from the VA to Expo Bundy 3. Interline the Purple line and the Sepulveda Line from Expo Bundy to LAX 4. Now you have TWO HRTs feeding the Airport and you have connected the Airport and the second HRT both to the Central Core! The Purple Line extension to the airport is such a dogleg, there's no reason to build it. Transit lines should be relatively straight and direct; that line is anything but. If we really care about a direct airport to city center connection, there's an existing ROW along Slauson that could be used. But even then, city center to airport connections aren't that useful, everyday uses generate far more trips than occasional uses like trips to the airport. Well look at it this way, you can spend two dozen billion building your new 12 mile line on slauson to create a CBD to airport connection Or You can spend one billion on a 1.83 mile extension of the purple line and achieve the same connectivity. (1.5 billion if you add a station palace at santa Monica bunny, 2 billion if you add a station palace at barrington wilshire And since it’s under two miles in length it gets some cEQA exemptions. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jan 30, 2019 2:26:44 GMT -8
I’m sorry but this is... pathetic. This corridor def could use HRT but LRT was the better option because of the ESFV line. Why would
you force a transfer like that, it makes absolutely no sense.
I’m hoping against hope that the ESFV line gets changed to HRT at the last minute or they scrap it and use the funds to just extend the sepulveda line another mile or I don’t know, SOMETHING!
and btw, on one of the plans both the ESFV and SP line are running concurrently... one above ground, one below. Might as well have them both below ground at that point? IDK Metro needs to really rethink this in someway.
>>>>>>>>>... by the way, on the plans that show the Expo to Inglewood phase, it shows a station at LAX/Crenshaw line and then one more a little past it, is that at LA stadium?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
(In a dream scenario you’d have the red line extended down Vermont, and you’d have the Sepulveda line continue going from LAX to LA Stadium/Clips arena and then continue to meet up with the Red line at Century/S.Vermont... but that’s fantasy land)
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 30, 2019 2:36:17 GMT -8
I’m sorry but this is... pathetic. This corridor def could use HRT but LRT was the better option because of the ESFV line. Why would you force a transfer like that, it makes absolutely no sense. I’m hoping against hope that the ESFV line gets changed to HRT at the last minute or they scrap it and use the funds to just extend the sepulveda line another mile or I don’t know, SOMETHING! and btw, on one of the plans both the ESFV and SP line are running concurrently... one above ground, one below. Might as well have them both below ground at that point? IDK Metro needs to really rethink this in someway. >>>>>>>>>... by the way, on the plans that show the Expo to Inglewood phase, it shows a station at LAX/Crenshaw line and then one more a little past it, is that at LA stadium?<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (In a dream scenario you’d have the red line extended down Vermont, and you’d have the Sepulveda line continue going from LAX to LA Stadium/Clips arena and then continue to meet up with the Red line at Century/S.Vermont... but that’s fantasy land) No, they are just using double circles to indicate transfer stations. It just means you can transfer to the Crenshaw/Green lines at that station. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 30, 2019 10:43:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 10:59:00 GMT -8
Those cost estimates are insane, the 5.4 mile tunnel reach from UCLA to Ventura blvd should be cheap, not expensive. If the consultants are jacking up the prices by orders of magnitudes above the per mile cost of the 2.4 mile redline tunnel under the same mountains, we should throw all those consultants in jail for life.
But it is nice to see they’re considering a large bore tunnel for this. I think it’s well suited for the long tunnel reach for emergency egress and ventilation reasons, could be a lot safer and cheaper to build than trying to build double bore and emergency exit everyone from the tunnel every quarter mile
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 30, 2019 10:59:45 GMT -8
This might be a dumb question, but in the scenario where they choose HRT1 and cut-and-cover the portion between the orange line and metrolink, would it make sense to just dig a little deeper and bury both lines stacked on top of one another, to grade separate the southernmost part of the ESFV line? If they're digging anyway, would the additional expense of burying that be small enough that the grade separation is worth it? They *could* even configure it as four parallel tracks in a local/express configuration, since that's exactly what it is in that portion, though it seems like in that scenario it'd be too wide to do cut-and-cover.
EDIT: Also, regarding the costs, is it possible the article is conflating the cost of just the tunnels with the cost of the entire first phase of the project?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 12:32:06 GMT -8
This might be a dumb question, but in the scenario where they choose HRT1 and cut-and-cover the portion between the orange line and metrolink, would it make sense to just dig a little deeper and bury both lines stacked on top of one another, to grade separate the southernmost part of the ESFV line? If they're digging anyway, would the additional expense of burying that be small enough that the grade separation is worth it? They *could* even configure it as four parallel tracks in a local/express configuration, since that's exactly what it is in that portion, though it seems like in that scenario it'd be too wide to do cut-and-cover. EDIT: Also, regarding the costs, is it possible the article is conflating the cost of just the tunnels with the cost of the entire first phase of the project? regarding your edit, yes of course they are, but there's a dangerous thing going on here, where contractors and consultants and metro take the per mile cost of an entire project and then apply it to this project. there are 6.4 miles on the first phase that is applicable to (four miles in the valley, 2.4 miles in west LA), and there's a 5.5 mile tunnel reach that is not applicable to. So if we take the purple line, budgeted at 8 billion for a 9 mile line and assume an 875 million per mile cost, obviously, the sepulveda line isn't going to cost 875 million per mile, because half of the line has no stations. Also note, that in west LA we will have a 1.7 to 2.0 mile section from Wilshire Westwood to the terminus of phase 1 with zero stops and we will have only three stops in the valley, with 2 mile spacing between those stops. both of which should drive down per mile costs of the project pretty severely. 6 stops over 11 miles, is one stop every two miles on average, while the purple line extension stations are about once every mile, (with two "long" reaches, from La Brea to Western, and from Century City to Westwood, both of which are still under 2 miles) *** I don't think there is any plan to cut and cover the overlap HRT 1, that is merely my speculation that it's the only viable budget/time conscious way to build it. Double stacking cut and cover as you suggest would kill any advantages from cut and cover in the first place, which is that it's quick and cheap. *** I'm amazed at all the outrage that HRT 1 is getting because of the necessary overlap and necessary transfer. It would be crazy to build the ESFV as fully HRT, but that's the only thing people seem to want. I very much wonder what the budget of the ESFV would be if it were 100% cut and cover HRT with 8 stations instead of 14. But good luck getting stakeholder buyin for cut and cover if the stations are more spread out. If they only had to do the ESFV cut and cover HRT from Van Nuys metrolink to Sylmar, would it be viable in their 1.3 billion budget? Currently it is 9 stations over 6.8 miles for that stretch, that would be 4.5 billion just for purple line station palaces. But cut and cover shallow platforms with no mezzanines? might be possible. if they reduced it to 5 stations. But frequent stations, like the ESFV line, are the only way to create buy in for cut and cover for the merchant stakeholders on Van Nuys. If stations are every 1.3 miles instead of every 0.65 miles, that is a hell of a lot more stakeholders dealing with construction in front of them but getting no long term benefit (station access) Even at cut and cover, the rest of the ESFV just probably cannot be done with the money available. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 12:35:30 GMT -8
one more thing on HRT station palaces for the ESFV, the LRT at grade stations are currently all about 2500 feet apart, HRT trains are 450 feet long, station palaces obviously are longer, about 800 feet at minimum, so if it were HRT you'd be talking a train traveling only 1000-1500 feet in between station palaces.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 12:45:05 GMT -8
how to budget this appropriately based on purple line:
purple line has seven stations, at 500 million each, that's 3.5 billion, but some stations like Fairfax and Century City are significantly more expensive, plus the excavation for the tie in to Wilshire western, let's set the station palaces at 4 billion
The purple line has a budget of 8 billion, so 50% of the cost is going to station palaces.
So to compare correctly, we need to calculate the per mile cost without station palaces, and it's 9 miles at 4 billion, but station palaces are between 800 feet (fairfax) and over a quarter mile (century city) long, so we should remove at least a mile from the distance, that makes it 8 miles of non-station-palace subway constructed at a budget of 4 billion
That's a budget of 500 million per mile.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 500 million per mile is about 25% project overhead, 50% utility relocation, 10% jet grouting and 15% tunneling costs, or about 200 million per mile if you don't worry about utility relocation and jet grouting.
That means for the 4 miles of the valley, it would be 2 billion, and for the 2 miles of West LA it would be 1 billion. and 500 million for the 1 mile to UCLA for all the hard parts.
at 5.5 miles for the actual mountain reach, it should be about 1.2 billion, let us round it up to 1.5 billion because these things always cost more.
And station palaces cost 500 million to build each, and sepulveda has six of them so 3 billion
so:
2 billion
1.5 billion
.5 billion
1 billion.
3 billion
= 8 billion
I guess their estimates aren't that far off. I was wrong.
If we could get rid of station palaces we could really make the whole thing a lot more affordable.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 12:53:00 GMT -8
If they could build the entire 4 mile section from Ventura Blvd to metrolink cut and cover at 100 million per mile, it would be 400 million instead of 2 billion.
That means no 1.5 billion for three valley station palaces, if cut and cover station platforms were only about 100 million each to build, you're looking at the entire 4 mile, three station section costing about 700 million instead of 3.5 billion.
That's a savings of 2.8 billion,
That drops the entire line's budget down from 8 billion to 5.2 billion
and that makes the entire project effectively funded.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 30, 2019 13:20:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 14:53:12 GMT -8
100 million for stations versus 500 million per mile of tunneling has the numbers backwards. But I love the first page that shows inflation adjusted red line costs and how much the per mile costs collapsed when buildings under the mountains!
|
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 30, 2019 18:54:57 GMT -8
There is plenty of land around LAX that can be acquired for a LAX HRT line but that's phase 2. The real question is phase 1 (SFV to Expo line)... They would probably have to rip up one of the Orange line parking lots to house the yard. But that will get NIMBY out in force. So I concede that Metro will probably try to find an excuse to interline the two lines... perhaps accomplished with Bundy extension and new (temporary) terminal station for both Purple and Sepulveda lines that can be used to turn around trains both north and east. But once we build phase 2 from Wilshire to LAX, I don't think there is any real reason to interline the operation. Unless we really believe LAX to Wilshire ridership will be double the ridership between Wilshire and SFV... seems unlikely. I don't care about interlining through to LAX so much as facilitating a purple/expo line connection. All the current proposals result in 2 transfers for either Wilshire or SFV riders to get to Santa Monica, which interlining through to Expo/Sepulveda or Bundy would solve. Edit: my bad, the "purple line extension" concept actually provides for a seperate sepulveda line extension to Expo. But that would be stupid compared to just building a junction off the purple line. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jan 30, 2019 21:04:36 GMT -8
It's worth remembering that there will be another link between Purple and Expo via the Crenshaw extension. I personally don't think interlining with the purple is that critical in context of the plans to continue south and offer alternatives to the 405. Transfers suck, sure, but they aren't dealbreakers.
As for yard locations, the line is going to conveniently end at Van Nuys Metrolink station now... right next to the location of the future valley LRT yard and a corridor owned by Metrolink. With the land values in the arts district these days, I don't think it would be fiscally possible to expand Division 20 beyond the Purple line plans anyway, so that might not be an accident.
It wouldn't surprise me if they still added a non-service single track connection between the lines though.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 30, 2019 23:21:31 GMT -8
Interlining with purple is about maximizing utility and connectivity. It’s not necessary but it’d make the whole system work better
Given the street geometries, where would one fit a viable non revenue service connector track?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 30, 2019 23:35:30 GMT -8
Those cost estimates are insane, the 5.4 mile tunnel reach from UCLA to Ventura blvd should be cheap, not expensive. If the consultants are jacking up the prices by orders of magnitudes above the per mile cost of the 2.4 mile redline tunnel under the same mountains, we should throw all those consultants in jail for life. But it is nice to see they’re considering a large bore tunnel for this. I think it’s well suited for the long tunnel reach for emergency egress and ventilation reasons, could be a lot safer and cheaper to build than trying to build double bore and emergency exit everyone from the tunnel every quarter mile I believe this is the 2016 report on cost for the Sepulveda Line mentioned in Laura Nelson’s article. There are detailed (although still rough) cost estimates for various options in this report. libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/160115_Sepulveda_Pass_Transit_Corridor_Financing_Strategy.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jan 31, 2019 3:21:39 GMT -8
Out of curiosity, and you all know how I feel about the two different modes in the valley thing ... but what are the the different prices per mile on the Sepulveda HRT and ESFV LRT? If hypothetically Metro were to listen to me and scrap ESFV in favor of extending the Sepulveda line further North - how far would that ESFV money take them? ... Honestly if it was able to get another 2.5 miles to Plummer St, I think that would be a better option than the ESFV line. But that’s just me
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 31, 2019 3:45:37 GMT -8
Out of curiosity, and you all know how I feel about the two different modes in the valley thing ... but what are the the different prices per mile on the Sepulveda HRT and ESFV LRT? If hypothetically Metro were to listen to me and scrap ESFV in favor of extending the Sepulveda line further North - how far would that ESFV money take them? ... Honestly if it was able to get another 2.5 miles to Plummer St, I think that would be a better option than the ESFV line. But that’s just me They are pursuing a public-private partnership for the ESFV Line, so your best bet is the private partner chips in a lot of funding to get that line done as a subway or HRT. The ESFV has $1.3 billion, which could get you 3 miles. The P3 contractor for the LAX people mover is contributing $1.57 billion for the people mover project, a hypothetical P3 contractor for an ESFV/Sepulveda Line might contribute more since it is a larger project: www.infrainsightblog.com/2018/06/articles/airports/financial-close-for-automated-people-mover-apm-project-at-lax/It is very unlikely to happen as scrapping a project is a very difficult process. They spent many years studying the ESFV as a light rail project and are going through the process of preliminary design/engineering of a light rail line. What could happen is they reconsider using LRT for the 2 lines (perhaps with 4-5 car trains) if there is a big public outcry, but that also doesn’t seem likely. |
|
