|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 31, 2019 7:46:02 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 At purple line prices, HRT is 880 million per mile, so about 1.5 miles. If it were all cut and cover shallow subway with no mezzanine station palaces? Possibly 150 million per mile. So that’s be 8+ miles which is more than enough |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 31, 2019 16:32:21 GMT -8
To bust out the numbers. The regional connector had 1.1 miles of tunneling, or 2.2 miles of tunnels created. 1 TBM at a cost of 18M, it cost 7M to disassemble, reassemble and decommission the TBM 2.2 miles of tunnels cost 60.4M 2.2 miles of invert tunnel concrete at 2.7M 2.2 miles of tunnel walkway at 2.4 M 2.2 miles of tunnel finishes at 8.9M 2.2 miles of cross passages at 1.6M That's a total of $76,000,000 for 1.1 miles of twin tunnels, or a cost of $69,100,000 per mile for 24 foot twin tunnels. applying that number of $69,100,000 per mile to the 5.5 miles of sepulveda tunnel we get a total cost of $380,000,000 for a pair of 24 foot twin tunnels 5.5 miles in length. Metro in the other documents is using an estimate of $504,000,000 per MILE of tunnel for the 5.5 mile tunnel reach, causing them to state that it will be 2 to 3 billion dollars to build. Where's the money going. (obviously the document shows where a lot of the extra money goes, mostly to shit that they run into trying to tunnel under streets), but still, this is why Alon Levy has pointed out that ex urban tunnels under mountains are generally orders of magnitude cheaper than tunnels under built out cities. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 31, 2019 16:33:55 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 Technically not much an extra $1.2 Billion assuming one or two stations would get us to LAurel Canyon or the Metrolink ROW if this is elevated, in a tunnel just Woodman. But the bigger question to me is how much would it have cost Metro to simply extend the platforms and extra 100 or 200 feet (with appropriate grade separation from the Orange Line to Roscoe for capacity) to then operate two more LRVs to the 3 LRV train and continue that longer train through a tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 31, 2019 16:49:59 GMT -8
media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/6.0%20Preliminary%20Cost%20Report.pdfand if you want to know why it is that america gets hosed on construction costs, it's nothing to do with construction costs, and everything to do with PROJECT MANAGEMENT as in page 36 of the above linked document where they literally state that rather than use the money in the project budget for project management they demand a rent equal to 50% of the total project budget and thus take the cost of a previous project and increase the cost of the next project by 150%. This cycle (over the decades) of every project increasing from the previous project by 150% is how we get to the purple line extension costing $880,000,000 per mile. But it doesn't have to be like that, as on page 8 of the same, the red line per mile cost went from 685M/mile to 437M/mile to 323M/mile from phase 1 to phase 2 to phase 3
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 31, 2019 17:53:37 GMT -8
^^ Yes. This is why other countries get more done with less money...because they control the costs of their contractors.
I always hear people say that the problem is American workers are overpaid. That's BS. The problem is the contractor-industrial complex: there are too many layers of board members, project managers, etc., each taking their generous cut. And Metro seems to actually encourage this, by playing along with the game every time a new project gets approved.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 31, 2019 19:01:15 GMT -8
^^ Yes. This is why other countries get more done with less money...because they control the costs of their contractors. I always hear people say that the problem is American workers are overpaid. That's BS. The problem is the contractor-industrial complex: there are too many layers of board members, project managers, etc., each taking their generous cut. And Metro seems to actually encourage this, by playing along with the game every time a new project gets approved. Just look at the spreadsheet, they invoice twice (at least) for the broken TBM conveyer screw from when Angeli was damaged by the unexpected steel it encountered. That’s an easy way to pocket six million, pay yourself twice! |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Feb 1, 2019 5:48:07 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 At purple line prices, HRT is 880 million per mile, so about 1.5 miles. If it were all cut and cover shallow subway with no mezzanine station palaces? Possibly 150 million per mile. So that’s be 8+ miles which is more than enough If this is true then the planning of these two lines is borderline corrupt or negligent at least. A one seat ride from the north valley to LAX or LA stadium might be the busiest single line in the United States. Imagine the amount of riders. Making commuters from north of the VN ML station ride a glorified streetcar and then transfer will cost Metro numerous riders. I’d suggest that if ESFV is converted/changed to a one seat HRT ride (even if it doesn’t go all the way to Sylmar) you could probably boost ridership on Sepulveda Line from 110k to 140-150k a day |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 1, 2019 10:10:30 GMT -8
At purple line prices, HRT is 880 million per mile, so about 1.5 miles. If it were all cut and cover shallow subway with no mezzanine station palaces? Possibly 150 million per mile. So that’s be 8+ miles which is more than enough If this is true then the planning of these two lines is borderline corrupt or negligent at least. A one seat ride from the north valley to LAX or LA stadium might be the busiest single line in the United States. Imagine the amount of riders. Making commuters from north of the VN ML station ride a glorified streetcar and then transfer will cost Metro numerous riders. I’d suggest that if ESFV is converted/changed to a one seat HRT ride (even if it doesn’t go all the way to Sylmar) you could probably boost ridership on Sepulveda Line from 110k to 140-150k a day It’s a geography, users and stakeholders challenge. The ESFV locals, which comprise about Two thirds of ridership, need/would use a fourteen stop lines with stations every half mile. The business owner stakeholders on the corridors want stops every half mile because they all benefit from the additional patronage and property value increases access to a transit stop brings. And with an end to end run time of 30 minutes, it’s about fifty percent faster than driving Van Nuys in mixed traffic (and therefore fifty percent faster than buses or streetcars). They all want and are willing to put up with center lane construction for six years to build their fourteen stop line. Cut and cover is usually not used for an entire subterranean line because stakeholders don’t want to put up with center lane construction, and if they do, it’s cheaper to do at grade? Why because the only way you get buy in is to have frequent stops, but with frequent stops you get extremely little benefit from underground grade separation, if stops were every mile, you could speed up the train some, but not enormously, and if you spread the stops out you lose the stakeholders buy in and now support for your train is crumpling. With a 600 foot HRT train, stations are a minimum of 800 feet long, with station centers every 2500 feet, you’re effectively going about 2.5 train lengths between stops, so it’s going to be a relatively slow experience not very different from LRT, saving less than five minutes. So whether or cut and cover is cheaper than typical deep bore tunneling, it has serious trade offs in terms of getting it used. The commuters and super commuters want to express bypass everything and never ever use any part of the line other than their commuting stop. They want no or as few stops as possible and would prefer an express from their stop to their end point (in other words they want a driving my own car experience with no trade offs). Both the majority of transit users and especially the stakeholders massively oppose making the line a semi commuter rail because they get minimal benefit and utility out of such a line. What’s clever about HRT1 is that it connects super commuters from Metrolink to what is functionally an express service on the corridor (minimal stops, faster trains) sort of serving the best of both worlds. |
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Feb 1, 2019 14:11:56 GMT -8
What’s clever about HRT1 is that it connects super commuters from Metrolink to what is functionally an express service on the corridor (minimal stops, faster trains) sort of serving the best of both worlds. I agree, I see HRT1 the best of both worlds. Super commuters get express service, local ESFV stakeholders get local service, the rest of the line isn't hamstrung by interlining/dinky LRT/short platforms/lack of grade separations north of the pass. And all that happens at a discount because the local service doesn't require TBMs or station palaces every half mile. With infinite money a local/express subway with cross platform transfers would obviously be preferable, but this probably the best network design we're going to get without a time machine back to 1920's construction costs.
With regards to the maintenance yard location, there are huge tracts of vacant or low-use land around the Van Nuys metrolink station that would be far more cost effective than expanding the Division 20 yard downtown (with a track connection to the Purple line). Division 20's location is a historical mistake anyway, that land is already absurdly valuable and is destined for a Hudson Yards style redevelopment in the distant future.
Also, there should be a travel-time study including the 25 minute headways that Metro will inevitably run on the line outside of 7-9am and 4-6pm, if the red line today is any guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Feb 1, 2019 15:01:18 GMT -8
I mean I wouldn’t be TOTALLY against the ESFV being LRT (a glorified local service to the Sepulveda HRT’s Express) if they could at least extend the HRT line another 2.4 miles north (2 stations) to Plummer St. TO me that sufficiently covers the Valley with a “one seat option” while allowing a Sylmar to Orange LRT/Streetcar like local option.
But ideally, scrap the ESFV line and extend Sepulveda 5 miles to meet up with the Antelope Valley MetroLink line. And you have a perfect line for riders
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 1, 2019 17:27:27 GMT -8
What’s clever about HRT1 is that it connects super commuters from Metrolink to what is functionally an express service on the corridor (minimal stops, faster trains) sort of serving the best of both worlds. I agree, I see HRT1 the best of both worlds. Super commuters get express service, local ESFV stakeholders get local service, the rest of the line isn't hamstrung by interlining/dinky LRT/short platforms/lack of grade separations north of the pass. And all that happens at a discount because the local service doesn't require TBMs or station palaces every half mile. With infinite money a local/express subway with cross platform transfers would obviously be preferable, but this probably the best network design we're going to get without a time machine back to 1920's construction costs.
With regards to the maintenance yard location, there are huge tracts of vacant or low-use land around the Van Nuys metrolink station that would be far more cost effective than expanding the Division 20 yard downtown (with a track connection to the Purple line). Division 20's location is a historical mistake anyway, that land is already absurdly valuable and is destined for a Hudson Yards style redevelopment in the distant future. Also, there should be a travel-time study including the 25 minute headways that Metro will inevitably run on the line outside of 7-9am and 4-6pm, if the red line today is any guide.
We could have achieve the local/express service on the same corridor with high quality center running BRT and subway. |
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Feb 1, 2019 17:55:48 GMT -8
I agree, I see HRT1 the best of both worlds. Super commuters get express service, local ESFV stakeholders get local service, the rest of the line isn't hamstrung by interlining/dinky LRT/short platforms/lack of grade separations north of the pass. And all that happens at a discount because the local service doesn't require TBMs or station palaces every half mile. With infinite money a local/express subway with cross platform transfers would obviously be preferable, but this probably the best network design we're going to get without a time machine back to 1920's construction costs.
With regards to the maintenance yard location, there are huge tracts of vacant or low-use land around the Van Nuys metrolink station that would be far more cost effective than expanding the Division 20 yard downtown (with a track connection to the Purple line). Division 20's location is a historical mistake anyway, that land is already absurdly valuable and is destined for a Hudson Yards style redevelopment in the distant future. Also, there should be a travel-time study including the 25 minute headways that Metro will inevitably run on the line outside of 7-9am and 4-6pm, if the red line today is any guide.
We could have achieve the local/express service on the same corridor with high quality center running BRT and subway. No no no, BRT is for Vermont in 2075, the ESFV gets 4-track express/local rail NOW |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 2, 2019 9:42:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 2, 2019 12:24:38 GMT -8
Hah! I knew the tall buildings at wilshire Westwood would kill any possible station on Westwood. I bet the Station will be diagonally under parking lot 36 and proceed south down veteran. With an underground walkway plaza to connect the two station palaces. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 2, 2019 21:11:41 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but Either HRT 3 or HRT 2 would need to clear the 101 Freeway so either way the tunnel will need to exit north of the freeway; Sepulveda Blvd is very wide north of the freeway and there is plenty of room for center running of the line aerial or not. Much is true of Van Nuys Blvd expect it doesn't get wider until way past the freeway and Magnolia st. The Van Nuys and Ventura Blvd intersection is very narrow and lots of businesses at the intersection. I think this is where the planning is going to get tricky and tight if HRT 1 is chosen. This jumped out on page 8 media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/presentation_Sepulveda_HNTB_2019-01.pdf> Westwood/UCLA is forecast to become the highest ridership transfer station in the Metro Rail system. > Orange Line/Van Nuys and Sepulveda stations would have boarding's greater than 7th Street/Metro Center does today REALLY? > Sepulveda Transit Corridor HRT concepts would be faster than driving between the Orange Line and Expo Line. I think that the HRT 3 impacts as stated by Metro are overblown and relic of the past. But we'll see how the public comments turn out. I don't really like Metro's new idea of extending the Purple line again and making the Sepulveda line terminate at the Expo line........ This seems like the kind of thing Metro does before completely changing directions yet again. Bzcat had it right when he noticed how damning this report is when Metro was ignoring all the calls to study Van Nuys and Sepulveda TOGETHER. Either way this thing will cost a lot of money and I hope I'm wrong but I doubt if it's built before the Olympics. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 3, 2019 12:33:39 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but Either HRT 3 or HRT 2 would need to clear the 101 Freeway so either way the tunnel will need to exit north of the freeway; Sepulveda Blvd is very wide north of the freeway and there is plenty of room for center running of the line aerial or not. Much is true of Van Nuys Blvd expect it doesn't get wider until way past the freeway and Magnolia st. The Van Nuys and Ventura Blvd intersection is very narrow and lots of businesses at the intersection. I think this is where the planning is going to get tricky and tight if HRT 1 is chosen. This jumped out on page 8 media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/presentation_Sepulveda_HNTB_2019-01.pdf> Westwood/UCLA is forecast to become the highest ridership transfer station in the Metro Rail system. > Orange Line/Van Nuys and Sepulveda stations would have boarding's greater than 7th Street/Metro Center does today REALLY? > Sepulveda Transit Corridor HRT concepts would be faster than driving between the Orange Line and Expo Line. I think that the HRT 3 impacts as stated by Metro are overblown and relic of the past. But we'll see how the public comments turn out. I don't really like Metro's new idea of extending the Purple line again and making the Sepulveda line terminate at the Expo line........ This seems like the kind of thing Metro does before completely changing directions yet again. Bzcat had it right when he noticed how damning this report is when Metro was ignoring all the calls to study Van Nuys and Sepulveda TOGETHER. Either way this thing will cost a lot of money and I hope I'm wrong but I doubt if it's built before the Olympics. HRT3 calls for an aerial alignment over the 101 freeway, while it would be completely underground for HRT1 and HRT2. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 3, 2019 14:35:47 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but Either HRT 3 or HRT 2 would need to clear the 101 Freeway so either way the tunnel will need to exit north of the freeway; Sepulveda Blvd is very wide north of the freeway and there is plenty of room for center running of the line aerial or not. Much is true of Van Nuys Blvd expect it doesn't get wider until way past the freeway and Magnolia st. The Van Nuys and Ventura Blvd intersection is very narrow and lots of businesses at the intersection. I think this is where the planning is going to get tricky and tight if HRT 1 is chosen. This jumped out on page 8 media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/presentation_Sepulveda_HNTB_2019-01.pdf> Westwood/UCLA is forecast to become the highest ridership transfer station in the Metro Rail system. > Orange Line/Van Nuys and Sepulveda stations would have boarding's greater than 7th Street/Metro Center does today REALLY? > Sepulveda Transit Corridor HRT concepts would be faster than driving between the Orange Line and Expo Line. I think that the HRT 3 impacts as stated by Metro are overblown and relic of the past. But we'll see how the public comments turn out. I don't really like Metro's new idea of extending the Purple line again and making the Sepulveda line terminate at the Expo line........ This seems like the kind of thing Metro does before completely changing directions yet again. Bzcat had it right when he noticed how damning this report is when Metro was ignoring all the calls to study Van Nuys and Sepulveda TOGETHER. Either way this thing will cost a lot of money and I hope I'm wrong but I doubt if it's built before the Olympics. HRT3 calls for an aerial alignment over the 101 freeway, while it would be completely underground for HRT1 and HRT2. I missed that. There are a couple of tall office towers on the south side of the Sepulveda and Ventura intersection that would sandwich the aerial. Still iffy in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 5, 2019 2:40:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Feb 5, 2019 9:51:58 GMT -8
Yep. It sucks because the 704 is such a busy route and should really have a transfer from the rail system at every opportunity. There was an awkward moment at the Westwood meeting where one said it would be "difficult" to put a station there and the other jumped in immediately with "WE DON'T BUILD STATIONS ON FAULT LINES." They have to strongly hold the line or BHUSD will launch another lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 5, 2019 10:11:36 GMT -8
I thought the lack of a station on Santa Monica was pretty glaring. Makes much more sense now. I guess there's nothing really to be done about it, so may as well focus on the fact that at least everything will be a tad cheaper because of it.
Obviously it wouldn't make any sense to do this here, but just generally curious, are there any restrictions to building at-grade or aerial stations in fault zones?
It does sorta sound like they're leaning toward HRT1, which I also think is the best. Very mixed feelings on the southern portion though. Part of me wanted to see them at least study a route that would've landed a station near Sony on Overland, as it seems like it would pick up a ton of ridership. I'd also be curious if eventually, at any time in the phase 2 process down the road, the owners of the stadiums/arenas in inglewood pitch in to extend the southern terminus there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 5, 2019 10:46:28 GMT -8
The fault zone runs from Brentwood to Beverly Hills along Santa Monica Blvd so I guess doens't matter which alignment it takes, there won't be a station on Santa Monica at Bundy, Barrington, Sepulveda, or Westwood.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 6, 2019 19:02:45 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but Either HRT 3 or HRT 2 would need to clear the 101 Freeway so either way the tunnel will need to exit north of the freeway; Sepulveda Blvd is very wide north of the freeway and there is plenty of room for center running of the line aerial or not. Much is true of Van Nuys Blvd expect it doesn't get wider until way past the freeway and Magnolia st. The Van Nuys and Ventura Blvd intersection is very narrow and lots of businesses at the intersection. I think this is where the planning is going to get tricky and tight if HRT 1 is chosen. This jumped out on page 8 media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/presentation_Sepulveda_HNTB_2019-01.pdf> Westwood/UCLA is forecast to become the highest ridership transfer station in the Metro Rail system. > Orange Line/Van Nuys and Sepulveda stations would have boarding's greater than 7th Street/Metro Center does today REALLY? > Sepulveda Transit Corridor HRT concepts would be faster than driving between the Orange Line and Expo Line. I think that the HRT 3 impacts as stated by Metro are overblown and relic of the past. But we'll see how the public comments turn out.I don't really like Metro's new idea of extending the Purple line again and making the Sepulveda line terminate at the Expo line........ This seems like the kind of thing Metro does before completely changing directions yet again. Bzcat had it right when he noticed how damning this report is when Metro was ignoring all the calls to study Van Nuys and Sepulveda TOGETHER. Either way this thing will cost a lot of money and I hope I'm wrong but I doubt if it's built before the Olympics. Looks like the Sherman Oaks HOA is opposing HRT3 unless it is underground, or else require that the Westside sections are also aerial.  |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Magruder on Feb 7, 2019 9:37:59 GMT -8
When BART was built Berkeley paid the additional cost of having the line underground rather than aerial. No reason the folks in Sherman Oaks couldn't form a special district and tax themselves to do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 9, 2019 20:56:22 GMT -8
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before, but Either HRT 3 or HRT 2 would need to clear the 101 Freeway so either way the tunnel will need to exit north of the freeway; Sepulveda Blvd is very wide north of the freeway and there is plenty of room for center running of the line aerial or not. Much is true of Van Nuys Blvd expect it doesn't get wider until way past the freeway and Magnolia st. The Van Nuys and Ventura Blvd intersection is very narrow and lots of businesses at the intersection. I think this is where the planning is going to get tricky and tight if HRT 1 is chosen. This jumped out on page 8 media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/presentation_Sepulveda_HNTB_2019-01.pdf> Westwood/UCLA is forecast to become the highest ridership transfer station in the Metro Rail system. > Orange Line/Van Nuys and Sepulveda stations would have boarding's greater than 7th Street/Metro Center does today REALLY? > Sepulveda Transit Corridor HRT concepts would be faster than driving between the Orange Line and Expo Line. I think that the HRT 3 impacts as stated by Metro are overblown and relic of the past. But we'll see how the public comments turn out.I don't really like Metro's new idea of extending the Purple line again and making the Sepulveda line terminate at the Expo line........ This seems like the kind of thing Metro does before completely changing directions yet again. Bzcat had it right when he noticed how damning this report is when Metro was ignoring all the calls to study Van Nuys and Sepulveda TOGETHER. Either way this thing will cost a lot of money and I hope I'm wrong but I doubt if it's built before the Olympics. Looks like the Sherman Oaks HOA is opposing HRT3 unless it is underground, or else require that the Westside sections are also aerial. Can't say I'm surprised. They are the most dominate HOA/political group in the valley and as I stated in my last post, the aerial is going to be sandwiched between some skyscrapers, the Sherman Oaks Galleria and as you approach the 101 Freeway private homes next to the freeway. Lots and lots of fun Metro will have not only in designing it (and selling the concept), since I think what Metro has in mind is having the tunnel entrance south of Ventura Blvd and close to the 405 Freeway. Sepulveda blvd south of Ventura Blvd starts going up in elevation to cross the mountains. Metro, I'm guessing, is planning on using the elevation difference to begin the aerial and then have a station at Sepulveda and Ventura; as the aerial heads north it will have to go over the 101 Freeway.
If this is Metro's plan, I think it is kind of neat. But having worked around there and driven through that area often enough, I can state with certainty that the horrendous traffic there now might become a standstill during construction and the Sherman Oaks HOA will/has freaked. To be fair I think anyone would. I what I outlined above is what Metro was thinking, I think it's a neat plan as long as traffic can flow and I'm good with it. The Sherman Oaks HOA has the money to sue.
Maybe Metro will push the tunnel past the 101 freeway and then start an aerial. Maybe metro will use the wide width of Sepulveda Blvd and run trains at grade. I personally like this option, and if Metro can show that construction will not impact traffic during rush hours and throw the Sherman Oaks HOA some goodies like Beverly Hills received and get this built. This is sausage making at it's finest.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 9, 2019 21:03:35 GMT -8
I forgot to add that I think that the huge numbers of business around that intersection could be very supportive of the HRT 3 proposal. This includes the Galleria and the office towers around there. Sepulveda and Ventura has many more businesses than Van Nuys and Ventura. I think if traffic doesn't become a disaster, these businesses and landlords will oppose the Sherman Oaks HOA. It's an interesting dynamic. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 9, 2019 23:05:44 GMT -8
I forgot to add that I think that the huge numbers of business around that intersection could be very supportive of the HRT 3 proposal. This includes the Galleria and the office towers around there. Sepulveda and Ventura has many more businesses than Van Nuys and Ventura. I think if traffic doesn't become a disaster, these businesses and landlords will oppose the Sherman Oaks HOA. It's an interesting dynamic. I like HRT 3, because I think it will be the highest ridership with the lowest cost. However, it sounds like a long shot with the opposition. One little carrot is the station with potential parking between the Van Nuys Metrolink Station and the Sepulveda Orange Line Station. Hopefully that excites a few people. Also, it kinda bothers me on HRT 1 that they'd tunnel under a line we are just building in the light rail line. In general it just seems better to serve different areas instead of the same even if only slightly different if possible. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 10, 2019 16:39:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 11, 2019 15:11:31 GMT -8
I forgot to add that I think that the huge numbers of business around that intersection could be very supportive of the HRT 3 proposal. This includes the Galleria and the office towers around there. Sepulveda and Ventura has many more businesses than Van Nuys and Ventura. I think if traffic doesn't become a disaster, these businesses and landlords will oppose the Sherman Oaks HOA. It's an interesting dynamic. I like HRT 3, because I think it will be the highest ridership with the lowest cost. However, it sounds like a long shot with the opposition. One little carrot is the station with potential parking between the Van Nuys Metrolink Station and the Sepulveda Orange Line Station. Hopefully that excites a few people. Also, it kinda bothers me on HRT 1 that they'd tunnel under a line we are just building in the light rail line. In general it just seems better to serve different areas instead of the same even if only slightly different if possible. They overlap HRT1 with ESFV on purpose to spread out the transfers. HRT3 has only 1 transfer station between Sepulveda line and ESFV, which means it has to be a really big station (also Metrolink and future HSR) so peak capacity to handle the crowd is a real concern. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Feb 13, 2019 10:21:56 GMT -8
They overlap HRT1 with ESFV on purpose to spread out the transfers. HRT3 has only 1 transfer station between Sepulveda line and ESFV, which means it has to be a really big station (also Metrolink and future HSR) so peak capacity to handle the crowd is a real concern. You're overselling it. I doubt anyone that wants to transfer will stay on ESFV until Oxnard instead of switching at the Metrolink station, so you're really only reducing the transfers from Vanowen and Sherman Way that would backtrack. Victory is close enough I would expect a lot of those riders to walk down to the Orange Line to take that one stop west instead of backtracking along a slow street-running LRT. And HSR won't follow the Ventury County Line, it follows the AV line. ESFV will take long enough between Sylmar and Van Nuys that I would expect very few people to transfer from Metrolink/HSR to that to the Sepulveda train. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 13, 2019 11:18:59 GMT -8
They overlap HRT1 with ESFV on purpose to spread out the transfers. HRT3 has only 1 transfer station between Sepulveda line and ESFV, which means it has to be a really big station (also Metrolink and future HSR) so peak capacity to handle the crowd is a real concern. You're overselling it. I doubt anyone that wants to transfer will stay on ESFV until Oxnard instead of switching at the Metrolink station, so you're really only reducing the transfers from Vanowen and Sherman Way that would backtrack. Victory is close enough I would expect a lot of those riders to walk down to the Orange Line to take that one stop west instead of backtracking along a slow street-running LRT. And HSR won't follow the Ventury County Line, it follows the AV line. ESFV will take long enough between Sylmar and Van Nuys that I would expect very few people to transfer from Metrolink/HSR to that to the Sepulveda train. Actually HSR follows both, it’s barely on the antelope valley line (wasting all that insanely massive right of way on San Fernando to go underground) and turns south into Hollywood way for a deep cavern Hollywood way station closer to the airport, then hsr continues south to turn east again to join up with the Ventura county line until the Ventura and antelope valley lines merge That little hitch-ity hop from one Metrolink corridor to the other for a slightly improved station location is an extreme scoping change that will wind up budgeting about 3-4 billion more than staying on the antelope valley right of way (which means the final cost will be (5-6 billion more). The Burbank station cavern alone is likely to cost 1.5 billion if not more It’s that kind of reason compounded over thousands of decision that causes HSR to cost 77 billion plus. For instance, every farm road near Fresno is getting a new overpass, some of which probably have only a hundred or so crossings a day, but we’re dedicating forty million per overpass for farm road overpasses rather than selectively closing some roads (and removing the closed road bed and retuning land to the farmers). That approach compounded over the 20+ farm road overpasses in just CP1 easily accounts for a billion dollars of bloat, but in more built up Gilroy they’re saying there is no money for overpasses, so HSR will just get quad gates at the grade crossings. Pure insanity: overkill safety for farm roads and totally abandoning safety in more populated areas. |
|
