Measure R Planning - Valley-Westside Rail Tunnel

[numble]

Feb 22, 2021 12:12:11 GMT -8 andert said:

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.

Haha, thanks. I am just someone that looks up transit stuff when I am procrastinating. Nothing like LA Times in depth investigation.

It is concerning when you look at the history of BYD and Metro, it's rare that board members proactively try to award a contract against staff recommendations, which that article alleges happened with BYD. The LA Times did an in-depth article on BYD, and they probably have not said so much for another contractor, even Tutor Perini:
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-electric-buses-20180520-story.html

BYD’s expansion underscores a major shift at public transit agencies in California and around the country as officials try to reduce pollution and comply with climate change goals by investing taxpayer dollars into electric vehicle technology even as it develops. BYD has won passionate support from some of the region’s most powerful politicians.

Thousands of pages of public records and interviews with those dealing directly with the company show BYD to be a skilled political operator. The company’s business model involves hiring lobbyists and grant writers to secure no-bid purchases by public agencies, and it has invited public officials on foreign junkets and employed their close associates. Those officials then repeatedly came to the company’s defense as concerns about the buses heightened.

BYD paid for Antelope Valley’s transit manager, Len Engel, to spend a week in 2016 visiting its facilities in China, on what officially was a plant inspection. Engel said he did not complete a written report from his trip, nor was he able to provide a copy of the itinerary or other documents detailing how his time was spent there. He was accompanied by six U.S. transit officials whose travel expenses also were covered by BYD. The gift was not reported as required by California ethics laws, until after The Times raised questions.

Six months after the China trip, BYD sent Engel to Ecuador for nearly a week and he gave a 15-minute speech at a three-day conference on urban development and housing. At his recommendation, BYD hired his sister-in-law to an administrative post. Engel said the relative’s hiring bought BYD no favors and that she was “absolutely qualified.”

BYD turned to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office for help. Garcetti, chairman of Metro’s board, is an avid proponent of smog-reducing electric vehicles. The mayor and his administration invited BYD to test new product lines within city agencies, arranged for city administrators to visit the company’s factory and pushed its elevated monorail in public appearances and to Metro’s technology board.

City records show two city departments sought to give BYD contracts without competitive bidding. In both cases when the projects hit snags, agency emails show, managers told the staff that the purchases were “political,” and in one case to work around problems with the bus. The sanitation department was awaiting approval to buy an electric shuttle bus from BYD in May 2017 when The Times sought records on the purchase. The sale immediately stalled and has remained pending for nearly a year. City airport administrators last year sought to expedite a contract to BYD as the sole supplier of airfield buses, until a competitor forced public bidding. Last month the agency awarded a $23-million contract to BYD, declaring the company alone met city specifications.

The mayor’s office encouraged city departments to do business with BYD, suggesting that the airport and Metro consider a joint contract with BYD, and giving agency referrals and support to BYD sales staff. In one case, BYD included in a grant proposal it wrote for the city a commitment for Los Angeles to buy $10 million in electric garbage trucks. Agency emails show sanitation managers balked at the idea of agreeing to buy something they had not yet tested, but the promise was included anyway in the grant application the city filed with the regional air board.

When the low scores on its 60-foot bus caused BYD to lose that $60 million sale to competitor New Flyer, BYD launched a lobbying blitz. Emails show BYD turned to Garcetti’s office for support, obtaining private meetings and tapping personal ties to the mayor. Labor leaders aligned with BYD launched attacks on its nonunion competitors. And BYD’s lobbyist focused on Metro director Ara Najarian, sending the former Glendale mayor scripted remarks urging that the contract be given to BYD, his emails show.

In a recent interview, Najarian said he led a failed effort to give the company the contract despite its poor marks due to the jobs BYD promised in Lancaster, not because of the efforts of BYD’s lobbyist, a longtime friend. Najarian said he believes BYD can overcome its production and performance problems, and that its economic engine is a valuable regional asset. It was a conviction he also expressed at a Metro board meeting in 2016, when he argued for a tempered response to the poor performance of BYD’s buses.

[numble]

Video advertising the monorail proposal:

[numble]

I received some of the proposal documents from LA Skyrail (BYD), Bechtel and Tutor Perini and made some Twitter threads about them (multiple tweets for each proposal: you need to open it in a Twitter app or the Twitter website to see all the tweets in the thread).

Bechtel:

LA SkyRail/BYD:

Tutor Perini:

[bzcat]

Thanks to numble for doing this.

I posted this in another forum but it's good to share here too.

The more I read the Bechtel report, the more I like it. They've hit it on the bullseye on a lot of things that have been discussed on here and other transit forums elsewhere. Single bore tunnel to save cost, open gangway (and shorter) trains to fit more people and reduce platform size, good station locations, pay attention to bus transfers etc. They seem to prefer Sepulveda alignment south of Expo to LAX but I think that is based on ease of construction and path of least resistance. Overland and Centinela alignments both have 1 extra station compare to Sepulveda so that also drives up costs. It's something that Metro did to rig the analysis as we discussed before.

The Skyrail proposal is ok but the terrible placement of the stations is a huge problem. One glaring issue - no discussion on the cost of tunneling from Getty center to UCLA and the underground station. And because the tunneling is an option, not their base case proposal, they did not address why once they detour off the 405, why do they want to return to the 405 when it is a straight shot down Westwood to Overland. Also, it is evident that they've already laid the political groundwork for their bid to go thru... I think the cake is already baked. At this point, it will take a major push from heavy rail advocates to try to overturn it. The fact that BYD had basically copted Move LA is a huge factor. We are here debating the merits, I don't think that's how the board will vote based on the merits. Especially if Move LA decides to stay on the sideline. Perhaps we should start thinking about how to salvage the Skyrail proposal and push them to do underground in West LA from Getty Center to LAX.

The Tutor proposal was lacking in detail compared to Bechtel and I can see why Metro decided to chose one and not the other to go forward.

[andert]

Yeah some of BYD's cost and ridership expectations seem... suspiciously rosy (especially ridership given the freeway stations), while Bechtel's seem more realistic. I think the key to defeating the BYD proposal is a furor over the prospect of years and years more 405 construction, along basically the entire stretch from the metrolink to LAX. That combined with highlighting the inequity of putting transit in the middle of the busiest freeway in America, which is not remotely good for transit riders' health, plus hoping the conflicts of interest coverage gets some traction outside of niche transit circles. That all has to overcome what the public will perceive as the major strengths of BYD, which are the huge cost savings, supposed speed of construction, and the gleaming presentation. BYD definitely hired better designers.

But the 405 stuff could be enough to move non-transit riders, and the prospect of riding in the freeway median could be enough to move transit riders. UCLA could be a powerful voice lobbying for Bechtel too.

And who knows, if a federal transportation bill comes through with some urban transit cash, maybe the price of Bechtel won't look as scary.

[numble]

23-page FAQ released by LA SkyRail regarding their monorail proposal:
secureservercdn.net/166.62.108.196/pn3.824.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/LASRE-FAQ-02232021.pdf

laskyrailexpress.com/faqs/

[bluelineshawn]

Regarding BYD paying for a public official to visit China under dubious circumstances, I can offer a view from the other side. I worked for a large, international, construction and consulting firm that once refused to pay for a similar dubious trip for an LA County official (and his wife) to China and was punitively not invited/allowed to bid on LA County projects for several years. The public sees private public companies bribing officials when in fact there is systemic abuse by LA County officials in these gray areas where they demand to receive these perks that are ultimately paid by taxpayers.

[numble]

The LA SkyRail team updated their website to discuss UCLA connectivity:
laskyrailexpress.com/ucla-connectivity/

One thing you can say is that they seem very motivated in their public outreach.

[numble]

Feb 27, 2021 13:26:59 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Regarding BYD paying for a public official to visit China under dubious circumstances, I can offer a view from the other side. I worked for a large, international, construction and consulting firm that once refused to pay for a similar dubious trip for an LA County official (and his wife) to China and was punitively not invited/allowed to bid on LA County projects for several years. The public sees private public companies bribing officials when in fact there is systemic abuse by LA County officials in these gray areas where they demand to receive these perks that are ultimately paid by taxpayers.

BYD will be advertised on every Metro vehicle and station:

[bluelineshawn]

I'm not a monorail fan, but I've been reading the LA Skyrail Express proposal and I wasn't expecting to be as impressed as I am. They have a very compelling concept and I'm not surprised that it's the front runner. I'm almost ready to say that it's theirs to lose. My only caveat is that I've only ridden monorails at Disney and in Seattle and if it's like those, no thanks. But if it rides like they say that it rides, then I think they've won. I ride the C line on my daily commute and hate freeway stations, but this looks different. It's also much cheaper to build, much cheaper to maintain, and can be completed by 2028, and also could eliminate the need for the Inglewood people mover.

Anyone else?

[brady12]

Mar 28, 2021 17:52:52 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I'm not a monorail fan, but I've been reading the LA Skyrail Express proposal and I wasn't expecting to be as impressed as I am. They have a very compelling concept and I'm not surprised that it's the front runner. I'm almost ready to say that it's theirs to lose. My only caveat is that I've only ridden monorails at Disney and in Seattle and if it's like those, no thanks. But if it rides like they say that it rides, then I think they've won. I ride the C line on my daily commute and hate freeway stations, but this looks different. It's also much cheaper to build, much cheaper to maintain, and can be completed by 2028, and also could eliminate the need for the Inglewood people mover.

Anyone else?

That’s just insanely short sighted. The cheapness shouldn’t really matter. Is the point to transform the city and make it more livable, workable, enjoyable place or is it to get the most bang for the buck in what is the transit corridor with the biggest potential in all of NA.

This line should be subway so it can inter line with other lines if need be. A third rolling stock causes all sorts of complications. And most of all - WHATS THE POINT OF MASS TRANSIT LINES IF THEY DONT BRING PEOPLE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO?!?!. The freeway stations idea is HORRIFIC • WHY ride the rail if you’re gonna end up in the middle of a free way and be forced to walk and then jump on a miserable bus just to get to your ultimate destination to on? The point is to be able to hop on near your home and get off within a few mins of your work.

This would be truly a horrific decision LA Metro will never live down

[usmc1401]

Yes agreed that a third form of vehicle that would not share ROW or maintenance bases is a very bad idea.

[bluelineshawn]

Mar 29, 2021 3:15:08 GMT -8 brady12 said:

That’s just insanely short sighted. The cheapness shouldn’t really matter. Is the point to transform the city and make it more livable, workable, enjoyable place or is it to get the most bang for the buck in what is the transit corridor with the biggest potential in all of NA.

This line should be subway so it can inter line with other lines if need be. A third rolling stock causes all sorts of complications. And most of all - WHATS THE POINT OF MASS TRANSIT LINES IF THEY DONT BRING PEOPLE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO?!?!. The freeway stations idea is HORRIFIC • WHY ride the rail if you’re gonna end up in the middle of a free way and be forced to walk and then jump on a miserable bus just to get to your ultimate destination to on? The point is to be able to hop on near your home and get off within a few mins of your work.

This would be truly a horrific decision LA Metro will never live down

Thanks for the response. I had somewhat similar thoughts to you before I read their proposal, although I already did know that interlining was not part of either proposal.

After reading the proposal I learned that the stations won't be in the middle of the freeway, they'll be next to the freeway. If the UCLA option is selected, then the locations would be substantially similar to the heavy rail proposal, which also locates several stations next to the freeway. Plus the monorail would have a station at Getty, which the heavy rail won't.

Additionally, I no longer worry as much about an additional rolling stock. The idea is that BYD would maintain all of the vehicles. All of the O&M. That's the partnership part. The maintenance is actually a selling point as it's estimated to be $40 million per year cheaper with the monorail.

I have only skimmed the Bechtel proposal, but I'm surprised at how well thought out the BYD proposal is. I'll report back when I've read both.

[bluelineshawn]

Mar 29, 2021 9:22:08 GMT -8 usmc1401 said:

Yes agreed that a third form of vehicle that would not share ROW or maintenance bases is a very bad idea.

Neither option shares ROW or maintenance facilities. That's not an issue. A third vehicle type would be a problem if metro were maintaining, but they're not. To me it comes down to whether the vehicles and BYD have a history of doing what they say that they'll do. If not, then no thanks. But if they do, it's a very impressive bid.

[bzcat]

Mar 29, 2021 9:24:03 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

After reading the proposal I learned that the stations won't be in the middle of the freeway, they'll be next to the freeway. If the UCLA option is selected, then the locations would be substantially similar to the heavy rail proposal, which also locates several stations next to the freeway. Plus the monorail would have a station at Getty, which the heavy rail won't.

Additionally, I no longer worry as much about an additional rolling stock. The idea is that BYD would maintain all of the vehicles. All of the O&M. That's the partnership part. The maintenance is actually a selling point as it's estimated to be $40 million per year cheaper with the monorail.

I have only skimmed the Bechtel proposal, but I'm surprised at how well thought out the BYD proposal is. I'll report back when I've read both.

You really should read both reports first.

The SCTP proposal doesn't have any station near freeways. The Valley and UCLA stations are all located where they should be and the West LA stations at Santa Monica and Expo line are underground 1 block east of Sepulveda which is right next to bus transfers and Expo line station.

Skyrail has the Valley stations next to 405 including the ridiculous one hugging the 101/405 interchange instead of Sepulveda/Ventura. The UCLA station is an "option" while all the West LA stations are again elevated next to the 405 freeway, including the 405/Expo station which will require an out-of-station transfer and about 1/2 mile walk to reach Expo line at Sepulveda. There is a big difference in underground station 1 block east of Sepulveda or one that overlooks the 405 freeway.

Rolling stock is not an issue with operation since this is a PPP and can't be interlined. But it is a problem with capacity. The Skyrail proposal has such a ridiculously low 14k to 19k peak passenger per direction per hour capacity, it is kind of a joke. In other countries, 15k passenger per hour per direction is a tram or light rail. Skyrail is cheap but it will be a max capacity right when it opens with very little ability to expand. BYD also has no experience in building monorail or any kind of transit project, so its cost estimates are probably wildly unrealistic.

SCTP's proposal is expensive but not out of line with similar projects in the US. Aside from the obvious benefit of not having any stations right next to the freeway, it also has nearly double the peak capacity at 27k passengers per direction per hour, which is what we need in this corridor.

[bluelineshawn]

Mar 29, 2021 13:16:31 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Mar 29, 2021 9:24:03 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

After reading the proposal I learned that the stations won't be in the middle of the freeway, they'll be next to the freeway. If the UCLA option is selected, then the locations would be substantially similar to the heavy rail proposal, which also locates several stations next to the freeway. Plus the monorail would have a station at Getty, which the heavy rail won't.

Additionally, I no longer worry as much about an additional rolling stock. The idea is that BYD would maintain all of the vehicles. All of the O&M. That's the partnership part. The maintenance is actually a selling point as it's estimated to be $40 million per year cheaper with the monorail.

I have only skimmed the Bechtel proposal, but I'm surprised at how well thought out the BYD proposal is. I'll report back when I've read both.

You really should read both reports first.

The SCTP proposal doesn't have any station near freeways. The Valley and UCLA stations are all located where they should be and the West LA stations at Santa Monica and Expo line are underground 1 block east of Sepulveda which is right next to bus transfers and Expo line station.

Skyrail has the Valley stations next to 405 including the ridiculous one hugging the 101/405 interchange instead of Sepulveda/Ventura. The UCLA station is an "option" while all the West LA stations are again elevated next to the 405 freeway, including the 405/Expo station which will require an out-of-station transfer and about 1/2 mile walk to reach Expo line at Sepulveda. There is a big difference in underground station 1 block east of Sepulveda or one that overlooks the 405 freeway.

Rolling stock is not an issue with operation since this is a PPP and can't be interlined. But it is a problem with capacity. The Skyrail proposal has such a ridiculously low 14k to 19k peak passenger per direction per hour capacity, it is kind of a joke. In other countries, 15k passenger per hour per direction is a tram or light rail. Skyrail is cheap but it will be a max capacity right when it opens with very little ability to expand. BYD also has no experience in building monorail or any kind of transit project, so its cost estimates are probably wildly unrealistic.

SCTP's proposal is expensive but not out of line with similar projects in the US. Aside from the obvious benefit of not having any stations right next to the freeway, it also has nearly double the peak capacity at 27k passengers per direction per hour, which is what we need in this corridor.

I realized after reading your reply that the links to the Bechtel proposal that numble provided above actually go to the Tutor Perini proposal and that's the one that has the freeway stations that are very similar to Skyrail. Anyone have a link to the Bechtel proposal? I agree that I need to read that for an accurate comparison, but that doesn't diminish how surprised I am by the content of the Skyrail proposal.

If I understand correctly, the UCLA preferred option that Skylink proposed has the UCLA stations at the same places as the Bechtel plan, but for billions less. I totally agree that the connectivity of the Bechtel stations are better, but Skyrail can build a slightly worse system that goes all the way to Inglewood for the same money that Bechtel needs to get just to Expo. Is the better connectivity worth $8-10 billion? I'm not sure that it is.

I agree with you regarding the passenger load limitation. Skyrail meets what metro said that they needed, but do they need more than what they said? Maybe.

I say all this not to say that I have a favorite, but the Skyrail proposal/team is very strong. If a monorail doesn't work for this line (and maybe it doesn't), then it will probably never work for LA because this is a very unique situation that favors a monorail in many ways.

[numble]

Mar 29, 2021 15:36:00 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Mar 29, 2021 13:16:31 GMT -8 bzcat said:

You really should read both reports first.

The SCTP proposal doesn't have any station near freeways. The Valley and UCLA stations are all located where they should be and the West LA stations at Santa Monica and Expo line are underground 1 block east of Sepulveda which is right next to bus transfers and Expo line station.

Skyrail has the Valley stations next to 405 including the ridiculous one hugging the 101/405 interchange instead of Sepulveda/Ventura. The UCLA station is an "option" while all the West LA stations are again elevated next to the 405 freeway, including the 405/Expo station which will require an out-of-station transfer and about 1/2 mile walk to reach Expo line at Sepulveda. There is a big difference in underground station 1 block east of Sepulveda or one that overlooks the 405 freeway.

Rolling stock is not an issue with operation since this is a PPP and can't be interlined. But it is a problem with capacity. The Skyrail proposal has such a ridiculously low 14k to 19k peak passenger per direction per hour capacity, it is kind of a joke. In other countries, 15k passenger per hour per direction is a tram or light rail. Skyrail is cheap but it will be a max capacity right when it opens with very little ability to expand. BYD also has no experience in building monorail or any kind of transit project, so its cost estimates are probably wildly unrealistic.

SCTP's proposal is expensive but not out of line with similar projects in the US. Aside from the obvious benefit of not having any stations right next to the freeway, it also has nearly double the peak capacity at 27k passengers per direction per hour, which is what we need in this corridor.

I realized after reading your reply that the links to the Bechtel proposal that numble provided above actually go to the Tutor Perini proposal and that's the one that has the freeway stations that are very similar to Skyrail. Anyone have a link to the Bechtel proposal? I agree that I need to read that for an accurate comparison, but that doesn't diminish how surprised I am by the content of the Skyrail proposal.

If I understand correctly, the UCLA preferred option that Skylink proposed has the UCLA stations at the same places as the Bechtel plan, but for billions less. I totally agree that the connectivity of the Bechtel stations are better, but Skyrail can build a slightly worse system that goes all the way to Inglewood for the same money that Bechtel needs to get just to Expo. Is the better connectivity worth $8-10 billion? I'm not sure that it is.

I agree with you regarding the passenger load limitation. Skyrail meets what metro said that they needed, but do they need more than what they said? Maybe.

I say all this not to say that I have a favorite, but the Skyrail proposal/team is very strong. If a monorail doesn't work for this line (and maybe it doesn't), then it will probably never work for LA because this is a very unique situation that favors a monorail in many ways.

Sorry, I provided the wrong link. This is the right Bechtel link: www.dropbox.com/s/4ip41fut9285bm0/Andrew%20-%20Volume%20II%20-%20Techincal%20Proposal%20-%20REDACTED%20%282%29.pdf?dl=0

[bluelineshawn]

Thanks numble. I'm reading it now. I notice that Bruce Shelburne is on the team and that's a big plus imo.

Speaking of the team...why is the Project Manager for Skyrail redacted? He's the only one. Could it be that he's an existing metro employee? Phil Washington maybe? Nah. He's leaving but that seems too much of a conflict? Richard Clark maybe? He's leaving too. Not trying to start rumors and we'll know sooner than later I guess. Maybe it's not a conflict but not sure why a name would be be released.

[numble]

Mar 29, 2021 16:25:41 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Thanks numble. I'm reading it now. I notice that Bruce Shelburne is on the team and that's a big plus imo.

Speaking of the team...why is the Project Manager for Skyrail redacted? He's the only one. Could it be that he's an existing metro employee? Phil Washington maybe? Nah. He's leak g but that seems too much of a conflict? Rick Clark maybe? He's leaving too.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Very odd to redact the project manager. You can pretty much determine who it is based on the clues though. It isn't Phil Washington or Rick Clarke. On one of the pages, it says "[Redacted] has held leadership roles on major North American transit projects, most recently as the Commissioning Director and Deputy Systems Director for the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit Project in Toronto, Ontario, and as the Director, Project Management for the Las Vegas Monorail." Only one person seems to fit that description, a "Reg Brockway"

[bluelineshawn]

Good sleuthing. Never heard of him and not sure why it's a secret.

[metrocenter]

Mar 29, 2021 16:39:51 GMT -8 numble said:

Only one person seems to fit that description, a "Reg Brockway"

“I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and by gum, it put them on the map!”

―Lyle Lanley

[bluelineshawn]

Lol! I haven't been able to get that episode out of my head for a month now. Didn't make that connection though.

[bzcat]

Mar 29, 2021 15:36:00 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Mar 29, 2021 13:16:31 GMT -8 bzcat said:

You really should read both reports first.

The SCTP proposal doesn't have any station near freeways. The Valley and UCLA stations are all located where they should be and the West LA stations at Santa Monica and Expo line are underground 1 block east of Sepulveda which is right next to bus transfers and Expo line station.

Skyrail has the Valley stations next to 405 including the ridiculous one hugging the 101/405 interchange instead of Sepulveda/Ventura. The UCLA station is an "option" while all the West LA stations are again elevated next to the 405 freeway, including the 405/Expo station which will require an out-of-station transfer and about 1/2 mile walk to reach Expo line at Sepulveda. There is a big difference in underground station 1 block east of Sepulveda or one that overlooks the 405 freeway.

Rolling stock is not an issue with operation since this is a PPP and can't be interlined. But it is a problem with capacity. The Skyrail proposal has such a ridiculously low 14k to 19k peak passenger per direction per hour capacity, it is kind of a joke. In other countries, 15k passenger per hour per direction is a tram or light rail. Skyrail is cheap but it will be a max capacity right when it opens with very little ability to expand. BYD also has no experience in building monorail or any kind of transit project, so its cost estimates are probably wildly unrealistic.

SCTP's proposal is expensive but not out of line with similar projects in the US. Aside from the obvious benefit of not having any stations right next to the freeway, it also has nearly double the peak capacity at 27k passengers per direction per hour, which is what we need in this corridor.

I realized after reading your reply that the links to the Bechtel proposal that numble provided above actually go to the Tutor Perini proposal and that's the one that has the freeway stations that are very similar to Skyrail. Anyone have a link to the Bechtel proposal? I agree that I need to read that for an accurate comparison, but that doesn't diminish how surprised I am by the content of the Skyrail proposal.

If I understand correctly, the UCLA preferred option that Skylink proposed has the UCLA stations at the same places as the Bechtel plan, but for billions less. I totally agree that the connectivity of the Bechtel stations are better, but Skyrail can build a slightly worse system that goes all the way to Inglewood for the same money that Bechtel needs to get just to Expo. Is the better connectivity worth $8-10 billion? I'm not sure that it is.

I agree with you regarding the passenger load limitation. Skyrail meets what metro said that they needed, but do they need more than what they said? Maybe.

I say all this not to say that I have a favorite, but the Skyrail proposal/team is very strong. If a monorail doesn't work for this line (and maybe it doesn't), then it will probably never work for LA because this is a very unique situation that favors a monorail in many ways.

Agree with you the Skyrail proposal was pretty well presented. However, as I already mentioned, the cost estimate is probably unrealistic. I can see it easily costing 100% more as BYD will be learning on the job.

[andert]

Searching through the BYD document, I found an estimate buried on pg 227 that the UCLA option, which would absolutely have to be part of the build, adds an estimated 2.1B and 2 years to the proposal (plus 4m travel time). That means the comparison is really 10.8B for HRT with 19.7m travel time and a peak capacity of 27.2k pphpd, with an IOS in 2028, vs. 8.2B for MRT with a 28m travel time and a peak capacity of 19k pphpd and an IOS between 2030-2032 (by their estimate, which means 2032 at best).

When you look at it like that, a difference of 2.6B for all the benefits of HRT sounds like almost nothing, and when you factor in that there is no way that BYD estimate is anything close to accurate, it seems insane to go with the monorail.

It was crazy clever and devious for BYD to bury the UCLA tunnel as an 'option' so that all the public comparisons of cost will use the baseline costs and schedules that are in no way representative of what would actually be on the table.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 13, 2021 13:14:50 GMT -8 andert said:

Searching through the BYD document, I found an estimate buried on pg 227 that the UCLA option, which would absolutely have to be part of the build, adds an estimated 2.1B and 2 years to the proposal (plus 4m travel time). That means the comparison is really 10.8B for HRT with 19.7m travel time and a peak capacity of 27.2k pphpd, with an IOS in 2028, vs. 8.2B for MRT with a 28m travel time and a peak capacity of 19k pphpd and an IOS between 2030-2032 (by their estimate, which means 2032 at best).

When you look at it like that, a difference of 2.6B for all the benefits of HRT sounds like almost nothing, and when you factor in that there is no way that BYD estimate is anything close to accurate, it seems insane to go with the monorail.

It was crazy clever and devious for BYD to bury the UCLA tunnel as an 'option' so that all the public comparisons of cost will use the baseline costs and schedules that are in no way representative of what would actually be on the table.

The Skyrail UCLA preferred option also moves the station connecting to the purple line to the same parking lot that Bechtel plans to use. It also includes an additional station for Getty that Bechtel doesn't have. And I don't know which company has a better track record at meeting goals (the BYD team also includes Skanska), but there's no way that the heavy rail option IOS could be done by 2028. Constructing above mostly ground seems like it should be considerably easier, cheaper, and less prone to surprises. It would be cool to see a large bore tunnel on the system though.

Regarding the cost, $2.6 billion may seem insignificant to you, but it's even more than that getting all the way to LAX. Maybe close to $4 billion in savings. Thats enough to build the Crenshaw extension most of the way to the red line. Plus the annual operating costs are something like $50 million per year less.

I don't know which technology will be chosen and it has to be heavy rails race to lose. But with billions more in costs, that could maybe happen.

[andert]

Well worth noting that the Bechtel IOS is just the entirely elevated section between the metrolink and ventura. Which, granted, is far far less useful than if it went under the pass. But could certainly be done by 2028.
There's just so many reasons that the BYD proposal doesn't inspire confidence in its assumptions that it seems to be a HUGE gamble to bet on a subpar line hoping it will at least come with a lower cost. Even if it were to come in on budget, for a line as important as this the sacrifices made seem quite steep, and a station at the getty doesn't feel like enough to counteract that when so many other stations (like the awful 101/405 station, or the ridiculous orange line transfer station) are so inferior.

[brady12]

Apr 13, 2021 20:25:37 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Apr 13, 2021 13:14:50 GMT -8 andert said:

Searching through the BYD document, I found an estimate buried on pg 227 that the UCLA option, which would absolutely have to be part of the build, adds an estimated 2.1B and 2 years to the proposal (plus 4m travel time). That means the comparison is really 10.8B for HRT with 19.7m travel time and a peak capacity of 27.2k pphpd, with an IOS in 2028, vs. 8.2B for MRT with a 28m travel time and a peak capacity of 19k pphpd and an IOS between 2030-2032 (by their estimate, which means 2032 at best).

When you look at it like that, a difference of 2.6B for all the benefits of HRT sounds like almost nothing, and when you factor in that there is no way that BYD estimate is anything close to accurate, it seems insane to go with the monorail.

It was crazy clever and devious for BYD to bury the UCLA tunnel as an 'option' so that all the public comparisons of cost will use the baseline costs and schedules that are in no way representative of what would actually be on the table.

The Skyrail UCLA preferred option also moves the station connecting to the purple line to the same parking lot that Bechtel plans to use. It also includes an additional station for Getty that Bechtel doesn't have. And I don't know which company has a better track record at meeting goals (the BYD team also includes Skanska), but there's no way that the heavy rail option IOS could be done by 2028. Constructing above mostly ground seems like it should be considerably easier, cheaper, and less prone to surprises. It would be cool to see a large bore tunnel on the system though.

Regarding the cost, $2.6 billion may seem insignificant to you, but it's even more than that getting all the way to LAX. Maybe close to $4 billion in savings. Thats enough to build the Crenshaw extension most of the way to the red line. Plus the annual operating costs are something like $50 million per year less.

I don't know which technology will be chosen and it has to be heavy rails race to lose. But with billions more in costs, that could maybe happen.

Saving money is of course a good thing especially when it can be used for other major capital projects. However it’ll say it again - putting the dollar bill first on THIS project of all projects is just.. moronic.

Using technology that adds a whole new set of challenges for Metro - and adds a whole new set of costs. But MOST of all - the station locations are HORRIFIC. It’s useless to build a line no one uses. If these stations are put next to the freeway and blocks & blocks from places people want to go then no one is going to ride it. This line has potential to change the entire perception of LA METRO and turn LA into a true mass transit city - the line could see more riders than entire Metro systems in the US (outside of NY). This can’t be messed up. Period.

Build this. From Van Noyes ML to UCLA to Expo to Centenilla to Sepulveda to LAX (and hopefully to SoFi/Clippers) and make the vast majority of it Subway. This is the project you can’t get wrong. There are two projects that require a lot of money and a lot of inconvenience but will change LA forever and this is one of them (Vermont the other). So spare no expense and get it done and get it done correctly.

[bzcat]

Don't forget the awful monorail to Expo line out of station transfer that requires walking from 405 to Sepulveda.

Adding the Getty station is a genius PR move. It sways the public opinion of a lot of people who don't use transit so do not understand the downside with increased travel time by snaking this line above the 405. There is no need for a Getty station... the people that will be using this line wants to get from SFV to Westside and Mid City fast. Other than the 50 or so people that works at the Getty, no one will be using that station on a daily basis. In a full EIR, the Getty station will almost certainly get scoped out based on low ridership.

And andert rightfully point out something that I already mentioned before... it is a clever sleight of hand by making UCLA an "option". It ensures the public discourse is centered on the unrealistically low baseline cost, as many have in this transit forum. Imagine the conversation taking place with politicians that has the power to make decisions...

It seems Skyrail is playing a long game... their main objective right now is to eliminate heavy rail as a mode option before going into EIR. Because based on proposed alignment and capacity (without considering cost), there is no reason to even move the Skyrail proposal forward. It's only when cost is a factor, this becomes a race. But as andert and I (and a few others) have pointed out repeatedly, the cost projection is not very realistic.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 14, 2021 7:50:35 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Using technology that adds a whole new set of challenges for Metro - and adds a whole new set of costs. But MOST of all - the station locations are HORRIFIC. It’s useless to build a line no one uses. If these stations are put next to the freeway and blocks & blocks from places people want to go then no one is going to ride it. This line has potential to change the entire perception of LA METRO and turn LA into a true mass transit city - the line could see more riders than entire Metro systems in the US (outside of NY). This can’t be messed up. Period.

Build this. From Van Noyes ML to UCLA to Expo to Centenilla to Sepulveda to LAX (and hopefully to SoFi/Clippers) and make the vast majority of it Subway. This is the project you can’t get wrong. There are two projects that require a lot of money and a lot of inconvenience but will change LA forever and this is one of them (Vermont the other). So spare no expense and get it done and get it done correctly.

I don't know what the best option is, but I'm on record with saying that BYD put together a very impressive proposal. I expected to hate it, but it deserves consideration.

As far as adding a new set of challenges for metro, it doesn't. Metro will neither operate nor maintain the trains. BYD will do both. I don't know if that's good or bad, but that's the P3 proposal.

[bluelineshawn]

Apr 14, 2021 10:32:13 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Don't forget the awful monorail to Expo line out of station transfer that requires walking from 405 to Sepulveda.

Adding the Getty station is a genius PR move. It sways the public opinion of a lot of people who don't use transit so do not understand the downside with increased travel time by snaking this line above the 405. There is no need for a Getty station... the people that will be using this line wants to get from SFV to Westside and Mid City fast. Other than the 50 or so people that works at the Getty, no one will be using that station on a daily basis. In a full EIR, the Getty station will almost certainly get scoped out based on low ridership.

And andert rightfully point out something that I already mentioned before... it is a clever sleight of hand by making UCLA an "option". It ensures the public discourse is centered on the unrealistically low baseline cost, as many have in this transit forum. Imagine the conversation taking place with politicians that has the power to make decisions...

It seems Skyrail is playing a long game... their main objective right now is to eliminate heavy rail as a mode option before going into EIR. Because based on proposed alignment and capacity (without considering cost), there is no reason to even move the Skyrail proposal forward. It's only when cost is a factor, this becomes a race. But as andert and I (and a few others) have pointed out repeatedly, the cost projection is not very realistic.

These are the advantages that I see with the Skyrail proposal:

• It's cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain
• It can be built faster
• It solves the Sofi people mover issue with one technology
• It has fewer unknowns. Digging under the mountains is a huge risk that could potentially go disastrously bad.

These are the advantages that I see with Bechtel:

• It has better station placement and connections
• It has the ability to have more capacity, which may very well be needed
• It''s faster