|
|
Post by jahanes on Nov 18, 2019 12:14:07 GMT -8
Glad my comments I submitted about single bore eliminating ventilation structures and cross passages construction for the mountain crossing were to good effect! Now to convince them that in the valley they need a shallow four mile all cut and cover excavation and NYC style stations with no mezzanine for the overlap with the esfv is the best way to proceed ASAP. Otherwise it’s a clusterf**k. But there’s really no way to get out in front of that segment of the esfv to do that excavation before site prep for the light rail begins. shallow cut-and-cover with street level as roof simply makes more sense for nearly all future subway extensions, not just on Van Nuys. LA has the most miles of roadway of any US city. Unfortunately, this would cut contract costs significantly and consequently the proportional fee accrued by the contractor itself. Eliminating vents in the mountains and other such case-by-case cost reductions are fine, but an overall shift to shallow cut-and-cover would eat into contractor dividends forevermore, so it just won't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 18, 2019 14:42:04 GMT -8
Glad my comments I submitted about single bore eliminating ventilation structures and cross passages construction for the mountain crossing were to good effect! Now to convince them that in the valley they need a shallow four mile all cut and cover excavation and NYC style stations with no mezzanine for the overlap with the esfv is the best way to proceed ASAP. Otherwise it’s a clusterf**k. But there’s really no way to get out in front of that segment of the esfv to do that excavation before site prep for the light rail begins. shallow cut-and-cover with street level as roof simply makes more sense for nearly all future subway extensions, not just on Van Nuys. LA has the most miles of roadway of any US city. Unfortunately, this would cut contract costs significantly and consequently the proportional fee accrued by the contractor itself. Eliminating vents in the mountains and other such case-by-case cost reductions are fine, but an overall shift to shallow cut-and-cover would eat into contractor dividends forevermore, so it just won't happen. This comment by one of Metro’s Program Management officers at a recent “Transit Coalition” meeting hints that they are open to cut-and-cover—he is gushing about how much money a Vancouver saved by ditching a bored tunnel in favor of a cut-and-cover. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 18, 2019 17:50:06 GMT -8
Seems like Metro is setting up Sepulveda as the prefer alignment in West LA which on paper is more cost efficient. However, it is largely due to the fact that Metro is skipping a station. If Metro eliminated a station from Centinela alignment (the one at Culver Blvd) it probably pencil out even better.
Point is I believe the 3 station setup on Sepulveda is a big of game rigging when Overland and Centinela both have 4 stations.
Overland: Venice Blvd (Palms - 1 block north of Sony), Jefferson Blvd (West LA College), Culver City Transit Center (Westfield mall), Manchester Ave (Westchester)
Sepulveda: Venice Blvd (Palms), [missing station], Culver City Transit Center (Westfield Mall), Manchester Ave (Westchester)
Centinela: Venice Blvd (Mar Vista), Culver Blvd (Del Ray), Jefferson Blvd (Playa Vista), Manchester Ave (Westchester)
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 18, 2019 23:50:02 GMT -8
Seems like Metro is setting up Sepulveda as the prefer alignment in West LA which on paper is more cost efficient. However, it is largely due to the fact that Metro is skipping a station. If Metro eliminated a station from Centinela alignment (the one at Culver Blvd) it probably pencil out even better. Point is I believe the 3 station setup on Sepulveda is a big of game rigging when Overland and Centinela both have 4 stations. Overland: Venice Blvd (Palms - 1 block north of Sony), Jefferson Blvd (West LA College), Culver City Transit Center (Westfield mall), Manchester Ave (Westchester) Sepulveda: Venice Blvd (Palms), [missing station], Culver City Transit Center (Westfield Mall), Manchester Ave (Westchester) Centinela: Venice Blvd (Mar Vista), Culver Blvd (Del Ray), Jefferson Blvd (Playa Vista), Manchester Ave (Westchester) It actually illustrates the weakness of the sepulveda route, the four centinela stations are strong for various reasons, (culver also serves Washington blvd for example), same as the strengths of the overland route. But as someone who has traveled sepulveda from National blvd (where I used to live) to Howard Hughes center (where I used to work) a thousand times, I can tell you that sepulveda has zero reasonable stops between Venice and the mall. There is literally no area worthy of a stop, only some low slung legacy retail and then some big box retail (spread out for a mile in a transit unfriendly route actively hostile to pedestrians trying to walk from store to store (which is blasphemy)). It’s not until you get to the mall/ transit center/office park that there’s a reason to have a stop, and a huge chunk of Culver’s apartments are within a mile of the mall, so it’s nearer to a big bomb of (relative) housing density too. I think the overland route is going to win, but silicon beach might pitch a massive YIMbY fit that pushes the politics towards the centinela option. Talk about a dream for those West Chester campuses, fast access to the airport and all their low level valley living employees can commute via transit. Whereas an overland route doesn’t benefit silicon beach at all. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 19, 2019 0:06:14 GMT -8
Glad my comments I submitted about single bore eliminating ventilation structures and cross passages construction for the mountain crossing were to good effect! Now to convince them that in the valley they need a shallow four mile all cut and cover excavation and NYC style stations with no mezzanine for the overlap with the esfv is the best way to proceed ASAP. Otherwise it’s a clusterf**k. But there’s really no way to get out in front of that segment of the esfv to do that excavation before site prep for the light rail begins. shallow cut-and-cover with street level as roof simply makes more sense for nearly all future subway extensions, not just on Van Nuys. LA has the most miles of roadway of any US city. Unfortunately, this would cut contract costs significantly and consequently the proportional fee accrued by the contractor itself. Eliminating vents in the mountains and other such case-by-case cost reductions are fine, but an overall shift to shallow cut-and-cover would eat into contractor dividends forevermore, so it just won't happen. Indeed. And “cost savings” on the mountain crossings from eliminating ventilation structures and cross passage construction is not about saving money, it’s about making sure you get some money! They’re tunneling under three miles of neighborhoods with hundreds of billionaires and near billionaires. These denizens are not normal NIMBYs: they control all of LA, every politician, judge and elected DA, nobody gets a position if the denizens of bel air are opposed (and they have wielded such power in a unbroken chain since mulhullond) if they don’t want the line built, it won’t be built. So the only possible strategy to prevent them from killing the project is a workaround so that they never ever have to experience impacts from the construction directly in their neighborhood. That it saves money is beside the point. It’s a shame though that cut and cover has been murdered by the contractors, we could have a real transit system if it weren’t for them. (But I sort of think it’s not a magic bullet and that various load bearing requirements, noise mitigations and utility clearances would be used as excuses to still require cut and cover to be deeper than New York legacy stations by a significant degree—ultimately possibly resulting in cut and cover being more expensive!) |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 19, 2019 0:44:35 GMT -8
shallow cut-and-cover with street level as roof simply makes more sense for nearly all future subway extensions, not just on Van Nuys. LA has the most miles of roadway of any US city. Unfortunately, this would cut contract costs significantly and consequently the proportional fee accrued by the contractor itself. Eliminating vents in the mountains and other such case-by-case cost reductions are fine, but an overall shift to shallow cut-and-cover would eat into contractor dividends forevermore, so it just won't happen. Indeed. And “cost savings” on the mountain crossings from eliminating ventilation structures and cross passage construction is not about saving money, it’s about making sure you get some money! They’re tunneling under three miles of neighborhoods with hundreds of billionaires and near billionaires. These denizens are not normal NIMBYs: they control all of LA, every politician, judge and elected DA, nobody gets a position if the denizens of bel air are opposed (and they have wielded such power in a unbroken chain since mulhullond) if they don’t want the line built, it won’t be built. So the only possible strategy to prevent them from killing the project is a workaround so that they never ever have to experience impacts from the construction directly in their neighborhood. That it saves money is beside the point. It’s a shame though that cut and cover has been murdered by the contractors, we could have a real transit system if it weren’t for them. (But I sort of think it’s not a magic bullet and that various load bearing requirements, noise mitigations and utility clearances would be used as excuses to still require cut and cover to be deeper than New York legacy stations by a significant degree—ultimately possibly resulting in cut and cover being more expensive!) Even if it's slightly more expensive I do agree that cross-platform transfer capability could be worth the cost... and I have to imagine that building both lines together where they overlap would save Metro a *significant* amount of money in the end. On that note, I also wonder if they'll build both Wilshire/Westwood stations together if they choose the option where the Sepulveda line station is directly underneath the Purple line station. Seems like they could save a lot of money by just doing it in one go, but it also seems like it could be a logistical nightmare on the financing side since each line may have different contractors, and different dates when money becomes available, and so on? |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 19, 2019 11:20:27 GMT -8
Indeed. And “cost savings” on the mountain crossings from eliminating ventilation structures and cross passage construction is not about saving money, it’s about making sure you get some money! They’re tunneling under three miles of neighborhoods with hundreds of billionaires and near billionaires. These denizens are not normal NIMBYs: they control all of LA, every politician, judge and elected DA, nobody gets a position if the denizens of bel air are opposed (and they have wielded such power in a unbroken chain since mulhullond) if they don’t want the line built, it won’t be built. So the only possible strategy to prevent them from killing the project is a workaround so that they never ever have to experience impacts from the construction directly in their neighborhood. That it saves money is beside the point. It’s a shame though that cut and cover has been murdered by the contractors, we could have a real transit system if it weren’t for them. (But I sort of think it’s not a magic bullet and that various load bearing requirements, noise mitigations and utility clearances would be used as excuses to still require cut and cover to be deeper than New York legacy stations by a significant degree—ultimately possibly resulting in cut and cover being more expensive!) Even if it's slightly more expensive I do agree that cross-platform transfer capability could be worth the cost... and I have to imagine that building both lines together where they overlap would save Metro a *significant* amount of money in the end. On that note, I also wonder if they'll build both Wilshire/Westwood stations together if they choose the option where the Sepulveda line station is directly underneath the Purple line station. Seems like they could save a lot of money by just doing it in one go, but it also seems like it could be a logistical nightmare on the financing side since each line may have different contractors, and different dates when money becomes available, and so on? They will not put the sepulveda line station cruciform to the purple line station to do so would cost a billion and a half dollars and the station excavation would be two hundred feet deep and take eight years to dig out. Iirc when the eir for phase two and three of purple was finalized they emphatically stated they were doing nothing in station designs to future proof stations for future Crenshaw and sepulveda line construction. |
|
|
|
Post by Treemaster on Nov 23, 2019 15:02:54 GMT -8
Even if it's slightly more expensive I do agree that cross-platform transfer capability could be worth the cost... and I have to imagine that building both lines together where they overlap would save Metro a *significant* amount of money in the end. On that note, I also wonder if they'll build both Wilshire/Westwood stations together if they choose the option where the Sepulveda line station is directly underneath the Purple line station. Seems like they could save a lot of money by just doing it in one go, but it also seems like it could be a logistical nightmare on the financing side since each line may have different contractors, and different dates when money becomes available, and so on? They will not put the sepulveda line station cruciform to the purple line station to do so would cost a billion and a half dollars and the station excavation would be two hundred feet deep and take eight years to dig out. Iirc when the eir for phase two and three of purple was finalized they emphatically stated they were doing nothing in station designs to future proof stations for future Crenshaw and sepulveda line construction. But wasn’t this how 7th St Metrocenter designed? |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Nov 24, 2019 10:31:55 GMT -8
IIRC with 7th street they did a change to punch the light rail through the mezzanine after most of the design was completed. That works decently with cut-and-cover because the tracks are right next to each other, but probably wouldn't work as well with a bored tunnel (though they were considering single-bore, so maybe that could work decently). Also, Wilshire and Westwood aren't a perfect cross like 7th and Flower are.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 2, 2019 12:39:39 GMT -8
Seems like Metro is setting up Sepulveda as the prefer alignment in West LA which on paper is more cost efficient. However, it is largely due to the fact that Metro is skipping a station. If Metro eliminated a station from Centinela alignment (the one at Culver Blvd) it probably pencil out even better. Point is I believe the 3 station setup on Sepulveda is a big of game rigging when Overland and Centinela both have 4 stations. Overland: Venice Blvd (Palms - 1 block north of Sony), Jefferson Blvd (West LA College), Culver City Transit Center (Westfield mall), Manchester Ave (Westchester) Sepulveda: Venice Blvd (Palms), [missing station], Culver City Transit Center (Westfield Mall), Manchester Ave (Westchester) Centinela: Venice Blvd (Mar Vista), Culver Blvd (Del Ray), Jefferson Blvd (Playa Vista), Manchester Ave (Westchester) It actually illustrates the weakness of the sepulveda route, the four centinela stations are strong for various reasons, (culver also serves Washington blvd for example), same as the strengths of the overland route. But as someone who has traveled sepulveda from National blvd (where I used to live) to Howard Hughes center (where I used to work) a thousand times, I can tell you that sepulveda has zero reasonable stops between Venice and the mall. There is literally no area worthy of a stop, only some low slung legacy retail and then some big box retail (spread out for a mile in a transit unfriendly route actively hostile to pedestrians trying to walk from store to store (which is blasphemy)). It’s not until you get to the mall/ transit center/office park that there’s a reason to have a stop, and a huge chunk of Culver’s apartments are within a mile of the mall, so it’s nearer to a big bomb of (relative) housing density too. I think the overland route is going to win, but silicon beach might pitch a massive YIMbY fit that pushes the politics towards the centinela option. Talk about a dream for those West Chester campuses, fast access to the airport and all their low level valley living employees can commute via transit. Whereas an overland route doesn’t benefit silicon beach at all. Sepulveda alignment doesn't buy you a whole lot in time saving but you give up on a lot of destinations. The fact that Metro is projecting higher ridership for this alignment is really questionable in my opinion. I strongly favor Centinela alignment for selfish reason because I live in the area... but I do think placing the line west of 405 is important psychologically. I won't be that upset about Overland alignment either since I was the first one to propose it on this forum years ago as an alternative to Sepulveda. The one stakeholder we haven't considered is Culver City. I'm really not sure what they prefer other than they want the Transit Center/Westfield Mall station. The Overland alignment with a station at Jefferson near West LA college is probably not going to sit well with the NIMBYs in the hilly section of Culver City. They are going to be up in arms about all the brown people using this station near their precious single family homes (I'm being blunt... no point beating around the bush. They were successful to force Culver City bus to discontinue serving West LA college properly). On the other hand, The Centinela alignment skips Culver City entirely... This will likely make the Culver City Council unhappy. Sepulveda presents a happy compromise for Metro... no stations in likely NIMBY zone, and Culver City gets its desired station at Transit Center. Path of least resistance and all... which is why they rigged the analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 2, 2019 15:06:30 GMT -8
It actually illustrates the weakness of the sepulveda route, the four centinela stations are strong for various reasons, (culver also serves Washington blvd for example), same as the strengths of the overland route. But as someone who has traveled sepulveda from National blvd (where I used to live) to Howard Hughes center (where I used to work) a thousand times, I can tell you that sepulveda has zero reasonable stops between Venice and the mall. There is literally no area worthy of a stop, only some low slung legacy retail and then some big box retail (spread out for a mile in a transit unfriendly route actively hostile to pedestrians trying to walk from store to store (which is blasphemy)). It’s not until you get to the mall/ transit center/office park that there’s a reason to have a stop, and a huge chunk of Culver’s apartments are within a mile of the mall, so it’s nearer to a big bomb of (relative) housing density too. I think the overland route is going to win, but silicon beach might pitch a massive YIMbY fit that pushes the politics towards the centinela option. Talk about a dream for those West Chester campuses, fast access to the airport and all their low level valley living employees can commute via transit. Whereas an overland route doesn’t benefit silicon beach at all. Sepulveda alignment doesn't buy you a whole lot in time saving but you give up on a lot of destinations. The fact that Metro is projecting higher ridership for this alignment is really questionable in my opinion. I strongly favor Centinela alignment for selfish reason because I live in the area... but I do think placing the line west of 405 is important psychologically. I won't be that upset about Overland alignment either since I was the first one to propose it on this forum years ago as an alternative to Sepulveda. The one stakeholder we haven't considered is Culver City. I'm really not sure what they prefer other than they want the Transit Center/Westfield Mall station. The Overland alignment with a station at Jefferson near West LA college is probably not going to sit well with the NIMBYs in the hilly section of Culver City. They are going to be up in arms about all the brown people using this station near their precious single family homes (I'm being blunt... no point beating around the bush. They were successful to force Culver City bus to discontinue serving West LA college properly). On the other hand, The Centinela alignment skips Culver City entirely... This will likely make the Culver City Council unhappy. Sepulveda presents a happy compromise for Metro... no stations in likely NIMBY zone, and Culver City gets its desired station at Transit Center. Path of least resistance and all... which is why they rigged the analysis. Ah I must have missed they are claiming higher ridership for sepulveda, I could have sworn it was lower ridership. That does look bad. The centinela route will pit the west side against itself with Santa Monica opposing it and silicon beach loudly demanding it. So long as it’s all subway, Culver City’s opposition is likely to be weak. And within the greater la diaspora the Culver City nimbys and the 900 SFH in the city have no political power compared to the nimbys of SM, Brentwood and Bel Air. So I think even if the CC nimbys opposes it in their neighborhood they would have no say in the matter if the nimbys that “matter” support putting it in their neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 3, 2020 13:59:25 GMT -8
Some details in the HTA proposal for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor’s environmental analysis and advanced conceptual engineering contract. HTA was the firm awarded the contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 8, 2020 8:56:06 GMT -8
It is really good idea to share transit and utility tunnel? I have no civil engineering background but I thought these things are like church and state... they don't ever mix because it is very problematic due to incompatible life safety requirements.
Sharing geological information with DWP makes sense... just not sure about actually sharing the tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 8, 2020 13:16:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 14, 2021 0:30:37 GMT -8
Details on the two P3 proposals Metro staff are recommending to move forward with. A $6.1 billion 100% aerial automated monorail from BYD/Skanska and a $10.8 billion 38% aerial/62% single bore tunnel automated heavy rail from Bechtel.
Staff are not recommending a $7.2 billion 39% aerial/61% tunnel heavy rail proposal from Tutor Perini or a $11.5 billion proposal from Fengate/Lane that was a partially automated light rail that connected with the ESFV line for a one-seat ride.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 15, 2021 16:09:44 GMT -8
Why is the Tutor heavy rail proposal rejected? The Bechtel heavy rail proposal was similar but nearly 50% more expensive.
Edit: so I read the explanation... Tutor's presentation was not good and lacks some financial details. Also, I'm glad Metro rejected the expensive light rail proposal. So it is heavy rail vs. monorail showdown. Which team has better political connection?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 15, 2021 16:20:18 GMT -8
Why is the Tutor heavy rail proposal rejected? The Bechtel heavy rail proposal was similar but nearly 50% more expensive. Edit: so I read the explanation... Tutor's presentation was not good and lacks some financial details. Yeah, I am trying to get some details on the proposals--If they want to give the public 2 months to weigh in, they need to provide more details. I don't think the 2-3 sentences is enough to explain why Bechtel's proposal, which costs $3.6 billion more, is better than Tutor's proposal. If they can't bring Bechtel's $10.8 billion proposal down in price to be closer to Tutor's $7.2 billion price, I don't see how the politicians on the Metro board can vote to reject the $6.1 billion Monorail proposal and spend $4.7 billion more on Bechtel's proposal, especially since BYD has been lobbying the politicians for years. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 15, 2021 16:45:47 GMT -8
Why is the Tutor heavy rail proposal rejected? The Bechtel heavy rail proposal was similar but nearly 50% more expensive. Edit: so I read the explanation... Tutor's presentation was not good and lacks some financial details. Yeah, I am trying to get some details on the proposals--If they want to give the public 2 months to weigh in, they need to provide more details. I don't think the 2-3 sentences is enough to explain why Bechtel's proposal, which costs $3.6 billion more, is better than Tutor's proposal. If they can't bring Bechtel's $10.8 billion proposal down in price to be closer to Tutor's $7.2 billion price, I don't see how the politicians on the Metro board can vote to reject the $6.1 billion Monorail proposal and spend $4.7 billion more on Bechtel's proposal, especially since BYD has been lobbying the politicians for years. The evaluation specifically mentioned that the Tutor proposal didn't include the capital cost nor location for the maintenance facility. It also lacked specifics on the alignment and vehicle type. Since this is a P3 contract, I think that they couldn't select a proposal that was very general even though they were certainly qualified. They also said that the team didn't "demonstrate cohesion", which I can only interpret to mean that the team couldn't agree on the answers to key questions. I'm very surprised that metro let the monorail option get this far. They can't just discount a $4 billion difference in cost for just 15,000 more riders a day (the travel times in these proposals are very similar to the HRT-3 and MRT-1 estimates, so I'm guessing the ridership estimates hold). There will have to be a very compelling reason to not select this option that goes beyond the fact that it introduces another vehicle type. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 16, 2021 13:16:26 GMT -8
The monorail option also 100% elevated... that's not going to fly so to speak with NIMBYs in the valley and Westwood. So it could be included just as a cover for Metro to say we considered the low cost option but we were overruled by other concerns.
I think a 100% elevated heavy rail would be similar cost (although I know there is concern about very tall viaducts required over I-405, which may or may not apply to the monorail as well)
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 16, 2021 13:33:48 GMT -8
Wouldn't a monorail also throw the 405 into yet another construction mess for 5 years or so, which I have to imagine people will rebel against, giving them more cover to choose the expensive option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Feb 16, 2021 14:49:59 GMT -8
I'm very surprised that metro let the monorail option get this far. They can't just discount a $4 billion difference in cost for just 15,000 more riders a day (the travel times in these proposals are very similar to the HRT-3 and MRT-1 estimates, so I'm guessing the ridership estimates hold). There will have to be a very compelling reason to not select this option that goes beyond the fact that it introduces another vehicle type. The MRT alternative was originally projected to cost somewhere between $9.4-11.6 billion. The reason for the dramatic decrease in cost is because the SkyRail Express proposal calls for a 100% aerial alignment, which is just absurd even when taken at face value. Constructing an aerial guideway that directly serves the UCLA campus and West LA is, for all intents and purposes, impossible from a physical, logistical, and political perspective. Any proposal that doesn't dedicate an on-campus station at UCLA isn't viable, and any proposal that does include a station on-site would have to be underground... that right there adds another billion to the price tag. Then you factor in aerial through West LA (are elevated viaducts even possible given that there's a fault line directly beneath?) and you begin to see where the cost savings come from. It's just not realistic, and I don't know why this option is being taken seriously to the extent that it's being awarded a PDA. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 16, 2021 17:17:20 GMT -8
Here are the details for the 2 proposals recommended by LA Metro staff:
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 16, 2021 17:26:38 GMT -8
Does is mean HRT1 and HRT2 are completely dead? Sherman Oaks nimbys are going to lose it. And yeah, no station at UCLA seems like a real non-starter. The efficacy of the monorail option is vastly reduced, and I think the nightmare of 405 construction will make the HRT politically viable despite the cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 16, 2021 18:23:42 GMT -8
Does is mean HRT1 and HRT2 are completely dead? Sherman Oaks nimbys are going to lose it. And yeah, no station at UCLA seems like a real non-starter. The efficacy of the monorail option is vastly reduced, and I think the nightmare of 405 construction will make the HRT politically viable despite the cost. Technically, they keep on studying the prior options and the new options until the board votes to take options off the table. It is possible that they take prior options off the table when they vote on adding these options at the March meeting (it costs more money to keep analyzing multiple options). |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 18, 2021 13:42:06 GMT -8
The routing is independent of the PPP vendor selection. Although the PPP proposal is based on building a specific routing, like numble said, Metro has the ultimate decision on routing. PPP vendor that is selected will amend its business plan once Metro approves a final routing and the project goes to EIR. But clearly, both HRT proposals have HRT3 routing so they must know or have inferred that is Metro's preferred alignment.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 18, 2021 15:41:24 GMT -8
Person on twitter saying that MRT violates caltrans designs standards: This seems to be the source of that: thesource.metro.net/2019/07/23/more-refined-concepts-and-cost-estimates-are-released-for-sepulveda-transit-corridor/I wonder if that could be a solid excuse not to go with MRT. Interestingly, Bechtel's proposal has 2% more underground than Metro's HRT3 which, combined with the diagram Bechtel included, makes me think they put it underground right after the ventura station and don't go over the 405 at all anymore, negating that criticism carrying over to Bechtel's proposal. I feel like Bechtel and Tutor may also have used HRT3 simply as it's the cheapest and easiest to appear competitively-priced while offering HRT, so moving back to HRT1 or 2 may not be ludicrous. Comparing Bechtel's diagram and data vs the HRT3 in Metro's alternative analysis, you get basically the same travel time and capital costs (with slightly lower operational costs in Bechtel's), so you can infer that if they were to shift to HRT1 or 2 routing at some point, you're still adding only ("only") a billion more in capital costs. If MRT gets denied for any number of reasons Sherman Oaks will start agitating to just throw the extra billion in there I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 19, 2021 0:14:14 GMT -8
Mayor Butts was very enthusiastic for the monorail proposal. He was probably one of the more powerful Metro board members, able to put together coalition of votes to make sure 1) the South Bay gets over-served with light rail service when the Crenshaw Line opens against staff recommendations, 2) shift Measure R highway funds to fund the Inglewood People Mover, 3) use Measure M transportation funds to pay for a South Bay fiber optic network, etc. The board has replaced 3 members recently (new members are 2nd District Supervisor Holly Mitchell, Whittier Councilmember Fernando Dutra, and Pomona Mayor Tim Sandoval) so its unknown if he still has the same coalition, but Holly Mitchell's district includes Inglewood, and Whittier and Pomona are more like Inglewood than Duarte and Long Beach (the former board members) were. Mayor Butts also authored a motion in 2019 calling for Metro to study monorail for the 28 by 2028 projects: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7043802&GUID=82064EC1-C6F9-4F91-8271-DFEB303DE45A |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 19, 2021 17:15:50 GMT -8
Based on previous reports, metro shouldn’t be too excited about the monorail option. No station at UCLA and anything in the middle of the 405 were deal breakers in the feasibility study where they eliminated many of the options. All stations in or adjacent to the 405 is something that only someone that doesn’t use public transportation would endorse. The only reason to consider the monorail is that it could potentially be operational for the Olympics but that’s very shortsighted.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 21, 2021 14:42:35 GMT -8
Person on twitter saying that MRT violates caltrans designs standards: This seems to be the source of that: thesource.metro.net/2019/07/23/more-refined-concepts-and-cost-estimates-are-released-for-sepulveda-transit-corridor/I wonder if that could be a solid excuse not to go with MRT. Interestingly, Bechtel's proposal has 2% more underground than Metro's HRT3 which, combined with the diagram Bechtel included, makes me think they put it underground right after the ventura station and don't go over the 405 at all anymore, negating that criticism carrying over to Bechtel's proposal. I feel like Bechtel and Tutor may also have used HRT3 simply as it's the cheapest and easiest to appear competitively-priced while offering HRT, so moving back to HRT1 or 2 may not be ludicrous. Comparing Bechtel's diagram and data vs the HRT3 in Metro's alternative analysis, you get basically the same travel time and capital costs (with slightly lower operational costs in Bechtel's), so you can infer that if they were to shift to HRT1 or 2 routing at some point, you're still adding only ("only") a billion more in capital costs. If MRT gets denied for any number of reasons Sherman Oaks will start agitating to just throw the extra billion in there I'm sure. Based on previous reports, metro shouldn’t be too excited about the monorail option. No station at UCLA and anything in the middle of the 405 were deal breakers in the feasibility study where they eliminated many of the options. All stations in or adjacent to the 405 is something that only someone that doesn’t use public transportation would endorse. The only reason to consider the monorail is that it could potentially be operational for the Olympics but that’s very shortsighted. I still wouldn't discount the monorail: 1) Metro is awarding a $64 million contract to the monorail proposal for them to keep developing the proposal, ensuring it has a better chance than an outright dismissal. 2) Cost savings make it easy for board members to justify selecting it 3) The company behind the proposal, BYD, has been very aggressive in lobbying/donating to Metro board members (this article says many board members had hard conflicts when voting on a prior BYD contract, and that BYD has donated to the Inglewood Chamber of Commerce to get influence with Mayor Butts: 2urbangirls.com/whats-going-on-in-inglewood-city-hall-mayor-butts-taps-metro-contractor-to-invest-in-inglewood-airport-area-chamber-of-commerce/) - They also seem to sponsor the Transit Coalition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-tQLLdT050) and organizations like Move LA (https://www.movela.org/sponsors). The rule for the Metro board in case of conflicts and lack of sufficient votes is that randomly selected conflicted directors are allowed to vote, which probably isn't that great of a rule. There always is a Caltrans issue with any project near or on a freeway, and that usually pushes costs up as Caltrans requires more mitigations. This has caused the I-105 ExpressLanes, I-210 Gold Line barriers projects to skyrocket in costs. The question is what those mitigations would cost, it might turn the monorail from being $4.7 billion cheaper to $2-4 billion cheaper, for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 22, 2021 12:12:11 GMT -8
numble, i feel like you should be a transportation desk reporter for the LA Times. You've got the most useful insights into the whole process.
|
|
