|
|
Post by numble on Apr 14, 2021 17:43:30 GMT -8
Metro silently announced the 5 options that will be studied in the Sepulveda EIR:
1. Baseline private monorail proposal
2. Private monorail proposal with underground UCLA station
3. Baseline private heavy rail proposal
4. Private heavy rail proposal that is fully underground
5. Fully underground heavy rail, running on Van Nuys
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 14, 2021 18:10:00 GMT -8
Let’s Go #5!
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 15, 2021 9:05:06 GMT -8
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
Some of the advantages you cited for Skyrail are a little problematic. - Cheaper to build and maintain: Based on BYD's estimates. BYD has no track record of building, operating, and maintaining a monorail so what kind of reliance do you put on this cost estimate? Unfortunately, there is no similar low capacity monorail in operation as transit line in North America for us to point to for comparison. This is the big problem. Heavy rail costs are well understood and vetted so Bechtel proposal can be compared and tested against actual real operating heavy rail metro lines in North America, including the one right here in our backyard.
- It can build built faster: Not if the UCLA "option" is included. The tunneling to UCLA will add roughly 2 years to the timeline. It may still be faster than heavy rail subway but not by much.
- Solves the Sofi people mover issue with one technology: Maybe... but that assumes BYD and Inglewood use the same monorail. That's not a guarantee. Also the Inglewood system is being considered and designed as a peoplemover not a metro so frequency, vehicle length/capacity, and station design standards are different (Inglewood will have to build a terminus station with multiple platforms for example adding more costs). You also have to think about PPP which means City of Inglewood will have to give up control of the peoplemover to BYD which seems unlikely.
- It has fewer unknowns: I think Skyrail has its own unknowns. The elevation difference between SFV and West LA basin means there is quite a huge incline. This is why all previous proposals to run rail above ground have not gone anywhere. Monorail does have the ability to climb more steep grades than steel wheel light rail but I think the book is not closed on this yet until a full engineering study is done with EIR. Tunneling under the mountain is not new and it is not inherently more risky than tunneling in other soil conditions. It is just different set of challenges and mitigation required. However, agree that tunneling under mountain is generally an expensive endeavor.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 15, 2021 9:21:25 GMT -8
Metro silently announced the 5 options that will be studied in the Sepulveda EIR: 1. Baseline private monorail proposal 2. Private monorail proposal with underground UCLA station 3. Baseline private heavy rail proposal 4. Private heavy rail proposal that is fully underground 5. Fully underground heavy rail, running on Van Nuys So #5 is same as #4 but instead of underground on Sepulveda in SFV, it is underground on Van Nuys? So the original HRT1 alignment? #2 is MRT1 on the alignment chart (except it used 405 instead of Sepulveda in SFV) #3 is HRT3 #4 is HRT2 #5 is HRT1 Why couldn't Metro line up the proposal with the alignment chart? This is going to confuse a lot of people. HRT1 (#5) was my favorite before because it creates two transfer stations from ESFV line to the subway.  |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 15, 2021 10:35:24 GMT -8
Some of the advantages you cited for Skyrail are a little problematic. - Cheaper to build and maintain: Based on BYD's estimates. BYD has no track record of building, operating, and maintaining a monorail so what kind of reliance do you put on this cost estimate? Unfortunately, there is no similar low capacity monorail in operation as transit line in North America for us to point to for comparison. This is the big problem. Heavy rail costs are well understood and vetted so Bechtel proposal can be compared and tested against actual real operating heavy rail metro lines in North America, including the one right here in our backyard.
[li]Solves the Sofi people mover issue with one technology: Maybe... but that assumes BYD and Inglewood use the same monorail. That's not a guarantee. Also the Inglewood system is being considered and designed as a peoplemover not a metro so frequency, vehicle length/capacity, and station design standards are different (Inglewood will have to build a terminus station with multiple platforms for example adding more costs). You also have to think about PPP which means City of Inglewood will have to give up control of the peoplemover to BYD which seems unlikely.
Given that this is a P3 and the very design BYD sites in their proposal is modular that can be done easily to where, I think the City of Inglewood and the South Bay COG will suggest Metro can pay the difference in the upgrade and transfer the O&M to BYD where the City of Inglewood will pay less per year as either a portion of their local control funds. I think Inglewood would love to give up control if it means more $$$ in their pockets plus with that connectivity to the Sepulveda Pass it increases the city's redevelopment potential of those sites next to the stadium so it becomes more than just a game day people mover its all day route which increases the utility of Inglewood and the COG to suggest what I mentioned above. ======================= The two proposals are very good and it will be tough to pick one. The thing I like most about Bechtel's proposal is that the strategy can be useful on other possible corridors Metro is building like Crenshaw North Extension and Vermont Subway Corridor. BYD's Skyrail even if the numbers are cooked by 30% with a UCLA option that will still be cheaper than the Bechtel proposal. Considering the increased cost projections we are experiencing with WSAB for the Downtown tunnel and added grade separations, Eastside Phase 2 with the added Atlantic Avenue/Citadel Subway, Green Line to Torrance, the All Electric bus fleet this will weigh on the Metro Board on where they can find cost savings in their projects. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 15, 2021 16:18:02 GMT -8
- 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.
I see you fell for their Trick! By only including UCLA as an option they make everyone think that all of the above are true. All of the above are false, because it will never be built without a stop at UCLA. You simply must compare MRT with UCLA to HRT with UCLA. comparing MRT to HRT with UCLA is a nasty trick that makes BYD falsely look good. with a proper comparison it's at a minimum 2.5 billion more expensive to go to UCLA (and adds quite a lot of triptime) But since that's also tunneling portion, it's actually going to be at least 40% more expensive than the initial estimate, 4 billion. that makes it at cost parity with the Bechtel proposal. so it's not cheaper to build, it may be be cheaper to maintain. It will require a tunnel to UCLA which means it cannot be built faster. we have no indication the people mover wants to connect to Sepulveda It has MORE unknowns because it is doing all the tunneling under the billionaire side of the mountain, and the tunneling will encounter more built infrastructure hazards with its route to UCLA, and the biggest unknown, monorails don't use tunnels, so it's a totally novel and unique and hazardous risk to be the first guinea pig. And the biggest unknown is CalTrans. Metro has indicated that CalTrans design standards will not allow center column monorail. Also a big unknown is emergency egress. no rendering has ever shown actual emergency egress options on a monorail, and never will. How frequently will there have to be pedestrian bridges from the passenger emergency walkways to new bespoke walkways on either side of the 405? will CalTrans allow emergency egress walkways to impede in their ROW? CalTrans is planning on using the 405 median for HOT lane technology, how does the monorail disrupt that plan? |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 15, 2021 16:58:38 GMT -8
I totally agree that there's a lot of handwaving around the Caltrans/405 aspects of BYD's proposal. And remember, by BYD's own admission, any version with UCLA would have its completion date pushed back to "2030-2032"... which means 2032.
And another thing that has not oft been mentioned, since the focus is on the northern half of the line -- we wind up with fewer stations on the LAX stretch with Skyrail. No station at sepulveda/manchester.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 15, 2021 18:00:55 GMT -8
well the good thing is that metro is not moving forward any version that doesn't go to UCLA so it looks like that terrible comparison that made BYD look good is going to die a quick death.
It's also encouraging that Phil Washington is out, and the PPP garbage he pushed forward will hopefully end as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 15, 2021 21:50:12 GMT -8
well the good thing is that metro is not moving forward any version that doesn't go to UCLA so it looks like that terrible comparison that made BYD look good is going to die a quick death. It's also encouraging that Phil Washington is out, and the PPP garbage he pushed forward will hopefully end as well. I really wouldn't expect anything to change with the change in CEO, especially not regarding how capital projects are handled. Stephanie Wiggins is as close as you can get to Phil Washington choosing his own successor. She was his Deputy CEO and he never appointed a new Deputy CEO after she left. In interviews around 2018, I think Phil explained that he convinced Stephanie to take the Metrolink job, as she was afraid that the Metrolink CEO job was a place that people go to retire, but he helped convinced her otherwise. It's clear that the Metro board chose to replace Art Leahy by declining to extend his contract and brought in Phil Washington to shake things up based on his experience handling Denver's capital projects--a lot of plans from Leahy's team were thrown out, including a bunch of P3 studies. It's clear that this time around, Phil Washington chose to leave on his own and the Metro board chose Stephanie Wiggins to continue the plans of Washington's team, especially since she was his deputy CEO for 4 out of 6 years. She certainly isn't being brought in to shake up the capital projects program as Metrolink hasn't done very much in terms of capital projects in her 2 years leading it. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 16, 2021 5:32:17 GMT -8
- 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.
I see you fell for their Trick! I believe the above to be true when including the UCLA station.By only including UCLA as an option they make everyone think that all of the above are true. All of the above are false, because it will never be built without a stop at UCLA. Non sequitur. You simply must compare MRT with UCLA to HRT with UCLA. comparing MRT to HRT with UCLA is a nasty trick that makes BYD falsely look good. Completely agree with the first sentence. I can't speak to their motivation and I don't find it "nasty", but I disagree that it made them look falsely good. The public backlash against not having a station at UCLA was significant and so far the negative publicity has far outweighed the positive. They were scrambling to send out press releases.with a proper comparison it's at a minimum 2.5 billion more expensive to go to UCLA (and adds quite a lot of triptime) But since that's also tunneling portion, it's actually going to be at least 40% more expensive than the initial estimate, 4 billion. that makes it at cost parity with the Bechtel proposal. The proposal states that it adds 4 minutes. I don't know how much it will cost, but I tend to agree that it will be at least $2.5 billion. Section 1 of the purple line extension is about the same length, but 3 underground stations and is $3.3 billion. This will add just one station so I suspect that it could be on the low end. I think that we have to look at the cost of the complete build out. If it ends up being within 10-15% of heavy rail, then it suddenly doesn't seem as attractive. If it's 20-30%, then it's more likely to be a competition. so it's not cheaper to build, it may be be cheaper to maintain. It will require a tunnel to UCLA which means it cannot be built faster. we have no indication the people mover wants to connect to Sepulveda It has MORE unknowns because it is doing all the tunneling under the billionaire side of the mountain, and the tunneling will encounter more built infrastructure hazards with its route to UCLA, and the biggest unknown, monorails don't use tunnels, so it's a totally novel and unique and hazardous risk to be the first guinea pig. Yeah, I was wondering if monorails use tunnels very often. Reading between the lines, the Skyrail team seems less confident about that. Speaking of tunneling, why aren't we discussing Bechtel's proposal to use a large bore tunnel? And the biggest unknown is CalTrans. Metro has indicated that CalTrans design standards will not allow center column monorail. Agreed. They do spend several pages discussing this in their proposal and seem quite confident, but in the end Caltrans hasn't agreed. Their proposal is so thorough that my guess would be that they asked and would have loved to attach a letter from Caltrans stating that it's feasible. The fact that Caltrans hasn't agreed is a big unknown, but metro should never have awarded them a contract if they didn't have confidence that this is a resolvable issue. Also a big unknown is emergency egress. no rendering has ever shown actual emergency egress options on a monorail, and never will. How frequently will there have to be pedestrian bridges from the passenger emergency walkways to new bespoke walkways on either side of the 405? will CalTrans allow emergency egress walkways to impede in their ROW? Good point, although my initial thought is that I'd rather be stuck on a monorail waiting rescue than hiking miles underground through a rail tunnel.CalTrans is planning on using the 405 median for HOT lane technology, how does the monorail disrupt that plan? They discuss this in their FAQ page on their website. They state that it won't, but I suspect that Caltrans may disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 16, 2021 5:54:00 GMT -8
Let's talk tunneling!
Bechtel proposes using a large bore tunnel which will eliminate constraints that metro currently has to live with. The back story to that comment is that as a cost-savings measure when constructing the red line, metro eliminated a ventilation shaft(s?) in the Hollywood Hills between Universal and either Hollywood/Highland or NoHo. I can't recall which or maybe it was both. The point is that fire safety regulations require that only one train can operate in a tunnel between ventilation shafts. This usually isn't an issue because the distance between stations is relatively short at only a minute or two apart and they all include ventilation. But because the stations at the end are 4 minutes apart, this means that metro can't operate trains more frequently than every four minutes. Realistically, more like 5 minutes. This all came up during a TTC dinner where Bruce Shelburne was speaking and is all to the best of my recollection. The point was that metro was concerned that they wouldn't be able to run purple line trains frequently enough to meet demand once the line was extended.
The Bechtel proposal states that large bore tunnels have a different setup for ventilation because the tunnel is subdivided and that it eliminates the need to build additional ventilation shafts through the mountains, which has to be a significant savings. This would be metro's first experience with large bore tunnels and afaik the first in the US. Anyone have any thoughts? Former metro train operations manager, Bruce Shelburne is on the Bechtel team btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 16, 2021 6:02:46 GMT -8
This is perhaps not a huge issue, but for me personally, the inclusion of this map here  does a lot of damage to my perception of the thoroughness of the BYD proposal. Granted, it's probably just due to a clueless graphic artist and no one though thought to glance more closely at the map once it was included in. But it seems to speak a bit towards presentation vs substance. I do want Bechtel to hire a better graphics team next time though. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 16, 2021 6:33:45 GMT -8
This is perhaps not a huge issue, but for me personally, the inclusion of this map here does a lot of damage to my perception of the thoroughness of the BYD proposal. Granted, it's probably just due to a clueless graphic artist and no one though thought to glance more closely at the map once it was included in. But it seems to speak a bit towards presentation vs substance. I do want Bechtel to hire a better graphics team next time though. I get it. If you're trying to show inter connectivity with the rest of the system, then you should map the system correctly. But I think that they were more likely just giving an overview of how their project fit in. Still how hard is it to get that right? It's at odds with another aspect that I liked about the Skyrail team, which is their local presence. Almost all of the team members have a major presence in LA. They went local while Bechtel's team is scattered and mainly back east. John Laing is the exception for Skyrail. That may not make a difference in the big picture, but their partners will be here before and after, win or lose. Lol. I sound like I'm selling for them, but I'm not. I just really like the thoroughness of their proposal. It may end up being not the way to go once metro scratches the surface. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 16, 2021 12:23:36 GMT -8
Let's talk tunneling! Bechtel proposes using a large bore tunnel which will eliminate constraints that metro currently has to live with. The back story to that comment is that as a cost-savings measure when constructing the red line, metro eliminated a ventilation shaft(s?) in the Hollywood Hills between Universal and either Hollywood/Highland or NoHo. I can't recall which or maybe it was both. The point is that fire safety regulations require that only one train can operate in a tunnel between ventilation shafts. This usually isn't an issue because the distance between stations is relatively short at only a minute or two apart and they all include ventilation. But because the stations at the end are 4 minutes apart, this means that metro can't operate trains more frequently than every four minutes. Realistically, more like 5 minutes. This all came up during a TTC dinner where Bruce Shelburne was speaking and is all to the best of my recollection. The point was that metro was concerned that they wouldn't be able to run purple line trains frequently enough to meet demand once the line was extended. Large bore is an especially good idea for the long reach of the Sepulveda project because it's under the mountains already and thus the depth problems of single bore are inherently not an issue. It's probably not a great idea for phase two (to LAX) simply because tunnel depth is determined by tunnel diameter, so a large bore tunnel has to be deeper. This will be the second large bore rail tunnel in the united states. BART is doing one extremely badly with horrible ill advised scoping changes in San Jose that completely wreck all the benefits of using large bore. (basically they proposed large bore, people liked it, then BART personnel demanded they massively increase the diameter, massively increase the depth, massively increase the cost in order to force the project to have center platforms. Why? because, and this is really the reason, BART is too lazy to deal with a non standard emergency egress pedestrian pattern for the large bore stations with side platforms, they'd rather spend four to six billion more and make the stations more unusable (the deeper the station, the more unusable it is for riders) so BART don't have to train their employees. Metro LA already has a wide variety of side and center platforms on its various rail lines, so this probably isn't a risk here. Another reason large bore is a good idea is cross passage construction. This tunnel routes under one of the largest concentrations of billionaires and millionaires in the entire world, any construction method that reduces surface construction impacts in their residential neighborhoods is a method that can actually get built. Dual bore would probably easily be stopped by the Ms and Bs simply on the basis of constant ventilation structures and the massive disruption of cross passage construction. Single bore will also reduce utility relocation under the Ms and Bs, perhaps eliminate it entirely, whereas dual bore would require years of massive disruption for utility relocation in their residential neighborhood. Single bore also affords the opportunity to lease some of the extra space to something like the new water reclamation tunnel they want to build along the same path way, you could tuck a huge pipe into the lower part of the tunnel easy. Also exciting in the Bechtal proposal is their open gangway cars which can transport a lot more people. this allows them to then reduce the consists they're running. reducing consists means they have way less penalties on acceleration and deceleration, that means they can run tighter headways. reducing consists also reduces braking distance, so they can again run tighter headways. reducing consists also means that station boxes are smaller, which means they're not as expensive. and a smaller station box also means it can make an ideal transfer to the purple line, whereas a normal sized station box has to be offset because there's just no room for it. Since they're also proposing automated driverless trains, that means there's no labor penalty on tighter headways and they're planning trains every 90 seconds, which is incredible from a rider's perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 16, 2021 13:01:50 GMT -8
Great information! Thanks culvercitylocke.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 18, 2021 18:37:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 19, 2021 10:25:43 GMT -8
I was looking at the Bechtel proposal for rail cars and the base proposal is a 3-car permanently attached set with an option for 4-car sets. The total length of the 3-car set is 215' and Bechtel states that they can accommodate 170 passengers per car and 510 per train. Multiply that by 24 trains per hour and you get a max of 12,240 passengers per hour in each direction. I think that the loading at that number of people will be way more than we've seen on any other line. For comparison, the existing Breda heavy rail cars are 75 feet long and max out at 124 people (see table 3.3 media.metro.net/projects_studies/nextgen/images/nextgen-report-tsp-final.pdf). The Bechtel plan is cars that have 4 fewer seats per car on cars that are 3.5 feet shorter, yet have capacity for 46 more people. I get that they layout will be better and the seats will obviously be much narrower, but I don't see us fitting that many people on a train. Maybe in Japan, but not here. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 26, 2021 10:23:01 GMT -8
Forgive me if someone's mentioned this before, but i just found another HUGE red flag in BYD's proposal. I'm poring over the documents for a video on the sepulveda line, trying to give a very fair and honest assessment of each proposals, found found this.
Looking more closely at the capacity mentioned above:
Metro is requiring the lines operate at 12,000 pphpd when they open.
Bechtel's initial capacity is 12,240 (barely making it), by running 3-car trains at 2.5m headways. Their max capacity is 27,200 (wildly better, and great overall) by running 4-car trains at 90s headways.
BYD's initial capacity is 14,000 pphpd (better!) running 6-car trains at 2m headways. It's max capacity is 19,000 pphpd (not great) running 8-car trains at 2m headways.
All of this is easy to find. HOWEVER, the huge caveat - Bechtel's max headways are built-in from the start. Their $10.8B capital cost is for stations with 4-car platforms.
BYD? Their $6.1B capital cost is for stations with 6-car platforms, which are designed for space to be expanded to 8-car at a later date. Which, obviously, would be hugely expensive, especially doing so without shutting down the line, which metro would almost certainly insist on.
So it's NOT $6.1B for a max of 19k vs $10.8B for a max of 27.2k... it's $6.1B for a max of 14k vs $10.8B for a max of 27.2k. For that $6.1B capital cost, the line is barely hovering above capacity the moment it opens. (Again, apologies if someone else already dug this up earlier in the thread).
They found a truly wild number of ways to essentially hide cost increases and wind up comparing apples to oranges - fronting their baseline cost while touting a bunch of numbers that don't apply to that baseline cost. While, as far as I can tell, Bechtel's numbers are truly baked into that 10.8B.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 26, 2021 11:21:45 GMT -8
I noticed the capacity issue before but I didn't connect the dots with the platform size.
Given the BYD base line proposal is for the short platform, it cannot physically meet the max capacity, which means the initial capacity (14k riders) is the max capacity... that's worst than some light rail train. So yeah, another sleight of hand on top of many sleight of hands, BYD maybe running out of hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 26, 2021 14:42:59 GMT -8
wow, that's impressively sneaky.
I expect the LaTimes will run an investigative story in 2045 about the failing monorail and it's multibillion dollar platform expansion debacle centering on how BYD snuck in bad capacity numbers into their bids and the gullible metro board (cough) then led by the totally innocent (cough, cough) dearly departed Butts weren't able to outfox the wily irascible contractors.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 26, 2021 17:20:37 GMT -8
Forgive me if someone's mentioned this before, but i just found another HUGE red flag in BYD's proposal. I'm poring over the documents for a video on the sepulveda line, trying to give a very fair and honest assessment of each proposals, found found this. Looking more closely at the capacity mentioned above: Metro is requiring the lines operate at 12,000 pphpd when they open. Bechtel's initial capacity is 12,240 (barely making it), by running 3-car trains at 2.5m headways. Their max capacity is 27,200 (wildly better, and great overall) by running 4-car trains at 90s headways. BYD's initial capacity is 14,000 pphpd (better!) running 6-car trains at 2m headways. It's max capacity is 19,000 pphpd (not great) running 8-car trains at 2m headways. All of this is easy to find. HOWEVER, the huge caveat - Bechtel's max headways are built-in from the start. Their $10.8B capital cost is for stations with 4-car platforms. BYD? Their $6.1B capital cost is for stations with 6-car platforms, which are designed for space to be expanded to 8-car at a later date. Which, obviously, would be hugely expensive, especially doing so without shutting down the line, which metro would almost certainly insist on. So it's NOT $6.1B for a max of 19k vs $10.8B for a max of 27.2k... it's $6.1B for a max of 14k vs $10.8B for a max of 27.2k. For that $6.1B capital cost, the line is barely hovering above capacity the moment it opens. (Again, apologies if someone else already dug this up earlier in the thread). They found a truly wild number of ways to essentially hide cost increases and wind up comparing apples to oranges - fronting their baseline cost while touting a bunch of numbers that don't apply to that baseline cost. While, as far as I can tell, Bechtel's numbers are truly baked into that 10.8B. I don't know. It may not be as simple as that. Both costs will increase significantly if they have to run lots more trains because O&M costs will go way up. It is a little sneaky though to not build a system that can achieve the max capacity that you tout. I fully expect them to put forth their lowest reasonable cost, but you shouldn't then describe an optional service that the system couldn't actually perform. Hopefully there will be an apples to apples comparison of the different scenarios. For example, UCLA will have a station and it will be underground so there's really no point to continue discussing the Skyrail Express base proposal because it won't meet the minimum requirements. Have you found a link the Bechtel Executive summary? The one to the Dropbox that numble linked was fully redacted. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 30, 2021 7:58:03 GMT -8
Doing some final fact-checking of the voiceover for the Sepulveda video. If anyone could chime in on the following I'd really appreciate it!
1. With the BYD and Bechtel P3s, is the particular P3 model that those groups will cover part of the capital cost, and the *remaining* costs that Metro will somehow cover are what are listed in the proposal? Or is this meant to be a type of P3 where capital costs are fully on the shoulders of metro, and those numbers are meant to represent the entire capital cost? Or are they the entire capital cost, but it hasn't been decided yet how the responsibility for the cost will split between Metro and the proposing group? I believe operational costs are meant to be covered by the P3 contractor for a fixed period, correct?
2. In the five options that Metro advanced (HRT1, HRT2, Bechtel's HRT3, BYD's monorail with UCLA, BYD without UCLA), there is no BYD LAX option, right? They only advanced the baseline van nuys-expo version with and without monorail? It doesn't seem clear from the metro document, though they only show the map of the baseline, and the LAX version would seem out of scope.
3. It was Caltrans's insistence on leaving the space beside the freeways clear that at least partially killed the SR60 route of the eastside gold line, correct?
4. When the red line was built, a hollywood bowl station was scoped out due to low ridership, correct?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 30, 2021 8:20:26 GMT -8
Doing some final fact-checking of the voiceover for the Sepulveda video. If anyone could chime in on the following I'd really appreciate it! 1. With the BYD and Bechtel P3s, is the particular P3 model that those groups will cover part of the capital cost, and the *remaining* costs that Metro will somehow cover are what are listed in the proposal? Or is this meant to be a type of P3 where capital costs are fully on the shoulders of metro, and those numbers are meant to represent the entire capital cost? Or are they the entire capital cost, but it hasn't been decided yet how the responsibility for the cost will split between Metro and the proposing group? I believe operational costs are meant to be covered by the P3 contractor for a fixed period, correct? 2. In the five options that Metro advanced (HRT1, HRT2, Bechtel's HRT3, BYD's monorail with UCLA, BYD without UCLA), there is no BYD LAX option, right? They only advanced the baseline van nuys-expo version with and without monorail? It doesn't seem clear from the metro document, though they only show the map of the baseline, and the LAX version would seem out of scope. 3. It was Caltrans's insistence on leaving the space beside the freeways clear that at least partially killed the SR60 route of the eastside gold line, correct? 4. When the red line was built, a hollywood bowl station was scoped out due to low ridership, correct? Thanks! On the first one, the idea is Metro and the contractor share in the capital costs. A typical Metro construction project is a design-build project, where the contractor is only designs and builds the project. The P3 contractor would probably design, build, finance, operate and maintain the project (DBFOM). The capital cost should be the cost for the project, and they haven’t figured out the split, but they give an idea of how much they can contribute to part of the financing (they say how much equity they can put in). This presentation explains it. There is also a video: The contractor contributes funding via its own money and also from raising private bonds. Then the contractor operates the project for 25-30 years, and Metro pays the contractor to operate it. Put another way, Metro usually can only raise bonds out of the 35% of Measure R/M that is dedicated to transit construction, and then the Measures set specific capital funding amounts for each project. This is a roundabout way to also raise bonds out of the 20% of Measure R/M dedicated to operations funding (and there are no limits on how operations funding is divvied up). The private contractor says Metro will be paying X amount to operate the line for 25-40 years and raises bonds based on that. The Tutor Perini proposal has a proposal in there about having a longer operations period, because it would lead to more bond funding available for construction. They said making it 40 years instead of 30 years means $1.7 billion more bond funding: The LAX people mover is a P3 and this doc gives you an idea of how it works: lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=478&meta_id=32885Project costs $1.95 billion. During the 5 years of construction, LAX will pay LINXS $1 billion, while LINXS will pay for the $950 million (or more) additional construction costs. For the next 25 years, LINXS will operate the people mover, and LAX will pay LINXS a fee per year to cover the current operation, maintenance and past construction/financing costs. LAX will pay about $100 million/year for LINXS to operate the line, so LINXS will get $2.5 billion total for operations, and they try to recoup the construction costs here, by trying to be more efficient than a public agency in operations (e.g. driverless trains). The contractor raised $1.4 billion in financing for the people mover: www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180611006256/en/Fluor-Announces-Financial-Close-on-Los-Angeles-International-Airport-Automated-People-Mover |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 30, 2021 9:29:04 GMT -8
Doing some final fact-checking of the voiceover for the Sepulveda video. If anyone could chime in on the following I'd really appreciate it! 1. With the BYD and Bechtel P3s, is the particular P3 model that those groups will cover part of the capital cost, and the *remaining* costs that Metro will somehow cover are what are listed in the proposal? Or is this meant to be a type of P3 where capital costs are fully on the shoulders of metro, and those numbers are meant to represent the entire capital cost? Or are they the entire capital cost, but it hasn't been decided yet how the responsibility for the cost will split between Metro and the proposing group? I believe operational costs are meant to be covered by the P3 contractor for a fixed period, correct? 2. In the five options that Metro advanced (HRT1, HRT2, Bechtel's HRT3, BYD's monorail with UCLA, BYD without UCLA), there is no BYD LAX option, right? They only advanced the baseline van nuys-expo version with and without monorail? It doesn't seem clear from the metro document, though they only show the map of the baseline, and the LAX version would seem out of scope. 3. It was Caltrans's insistence on leaving the space beside the freeways clear that at least partially killed the SR60 route of the eastside gold line, correct? 4. When the red line was built, a hollywood bowl station was scoped out due to low ridership, correct? Thanks! For your second one, the document isn’t actually clear whether LAX is included: libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/210414_Sepulveda_Transit_Corridor_Project_Environmental_Review.pdfFor 3, yes, all of the reasons are here: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4334638&GUID=9E3521A4-29D1-4385-B685-DB6B83F3978F&Options=ID%7CText%7C&FullText=1 |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 30, 2021 9:57:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 1, 2021 23:52:36 GMT -8
Thanks numble! I just tweeted at Metro about the 5 alternatives, we'll see if they respond. It *seems* like they've eliminated LAX/Orange as the numbers they're displaying refer to the baseline, but if I don't get an answer from them I'll just clarify that metro left it vague. So thinking more about this, the contract for Metro's consultant that is doing the environmental impact report does have an optional task to study the Westside to LAX segment, with the optional task costing $7,544,627, and the board-approved budget for the contract does include the cost for this optional task. So even if they do not study it immediately, I think they would probably opt to study it sometime within this contract, as it is relatively cheap compared to doing a new EIR. metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4617389&GUID=70583ACD-5C4E-4C67-87EB-713DF18AC21B&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&FullText=1 |
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 2, 2021 6:46:42 GMT -8
Wow, good find. I'll adjust the script. It definitely does feel like it's more for getting a jumpstart for a phase 2 study than a consideration of it for phase 1, i agree. Considering Metro said that it felt 2 connections to the ESFV line might be necessary to avoid overcrowding, and the phase 1 LAX option has zero, it seems like a no-brainer to strike it. And they're not going to build the whole line in a single phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 2, 2021 18:00:27 GMT -8
Another question: did Metro ever say that only one transfer station with the ESFV line risks station overcrowding, as a justification for HRT1's two transfers? I swear I've read that but I can't find the source and wondering if I'm conflating speculation from here with an official statement to that effect. EDIT: pg 109 of this document mentions the benefit of having two connections to disperse transfers but doesn't say that overcrowding is likely with one. However this doc does spell out why a connection at the metrolink ESFV is necessary to avoid going overcapacity on the ESFV line. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 3, 2021 8:51:23 GMT -8
Another question: did Metro ever say that only one transfer station with the ESFV line risks station overcrowding, as a justification for HRT1's two transfers? I swear I've read that but I can't find the source and wondering if I'm conflating speculation from here with an official statement to that effect. EDIT: pg 109 of this document mentions the benefit of having two connections to disperse transfers but doesn't say that overcrowding is likely with one. However this doc does spell out why a connection at the metrolink ESFV is necessary to avoid going overcapacity on the ESFV line. This is the presentation that explains the overcrowding issue, they show how crowding looks like under the different alternatives that go farther north. It shows that ESFV is less crowded if there is the one connection at the Metrolink station rather than two connections, I guess because some people might wait until the last station to transfer to the Sepulveda line. media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Presentation_sepulveda_transit_corridor_2019-01.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 3, 2021 9:35:58 GMT -8
That's a bit counter intuitive but there is some nuance here to andert's question about transfer stations: - Two transfer stations may cause overcrowding on ESFV but not at the stations.
- One transfer station will not cause overcrowding on ESFV but may cause overcrowding at the transfer station.
The idea being that ESFV capacity is limited due to 3-car LRT constraint but we can build a bigger transfer station if needed. Looking forward to the video  |
|
