|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 6, 2021 13:59:40 GMT -8
Thanks for the specs for the CRRC cars. That helps, but I'm not convinced that we're comparing apples to apples. I think that I commented on this months ago, but the Bechtel estimate is using an estimated density of 4 riders per square meter. The CRRC estimate appears to be using a density just below 3. Which when you start to put into focus this part of the capacity equation and one or two of the alternates will still overwhelm ESFV capacity which eliminated one of the original all LRT alternatives then this impacts the entire Sepulveda Transit corridor capacity. It may be more realistic to start slowing down construction ramp up for the ESFV LRT and hold off on construction until a LPA is found or realize that more grade separations are needed for ESFV LRT to match the capacities. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 23, 2021 11:55:08 GMT -8
And my god, I didn't know that's where the 101 station was, the horror the horror. Everyone is of course screaming about the need to have a station actually at UCLA, which we all support. I am also pointing out in my comments that we need the station to be a Venttura Blvd.x not the 101 Freeway. People are missing that in the commentary. We need these stations for the convenience of transit riders going to walkable destinations and transferring to buses — not for NIMBYs who don’t want transit riders near them. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 28, 2022 13:37:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 7, 2022 14:10:50 GMT -8
More details on Bel-Air’s opposition. They seem to be saying they support the non-underground monorail options.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Feb 8, 2022 9:59:38 GMT -8
More details on Bel-Air’s opposition. They seem to be saying they support the non-underground monorail options. Despicable |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 8, 2022 13:47:36 GMT -8
It's kind of awe-inspiring just how wrong everything in this complaint is. Went through the whole thing on twitter:
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 11, 2022 11:50:33 GMT -8
So thanks to a random connection my fiancée's family has I'm actually now talking to someone on the Bel-Air board trying to explain to them how the claims they're making are incorrect and the Monorail would actually be worse for their residents. Let's see how this goes.
|
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by expo on Feb 11, 2022 13:19:16 GMT -8
So thanks to a random connection my fiancée's family has I'm actually now talking to someone on the Bel-Air board trying to explain to them how the claims they're making are incorrect and the Monorail would actually be worse for their residents. Let's see how this goes. You're a blessing to LA transit (along with Numble)! Thanks for all you do! |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 11, 2022 18:55:29 GMT -8
So thanks to a random connection my fiancée's family has I'm actually now talking to someone on the Bel-Air board trying to explain to them how the claims they're making are incorrect and the Monorail would actually be worse for their residents. Let's see how this goes. You're a blessing to LA transit (along with Numble)! Thanks for all you do! Thanks, expo. Unfortunately it was a, um, shall we say fruitless endeavor. I was connected from the first person i was put in touch with to the ticketmaster dude who apparently heads their metro stuff, and gave him a very precise response to the points raised in the release explaining how their concerns were unfounded, and I got back an absolutely unhinged response that boiled down to "why would we support something when there's nothing in it for us." So... yeah, the quality of person we're dealing with is not high. Not that that was ever in doubt. Oof. Might throw the emails up on Twitter for the masses. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 11, 2022 20:27:31 GMT -8
Posted it here:
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 14, 2022 20:23:25 GMT -8
I was just shown another absolutely unhinged email fred rosen sent to Stephanie Wiggins (and copied a bunch of other people on) - and he takes a weirdly specific veer into monorail advocacy amidst his otherwise-incoherent rant, using what feels like talking points. (he keeps repeating the 100-year-old technology line as one example). I really have to wonder if BYD's strategy, now that they were advanced along with Bechtel instead of advanced alone, is to get Bel Air to try to tank heavy rail. It is just... weird how passionate he sounds about the monorail when the rest of his ranting demeanor makes it very obvious that he thinks there shouldn't be a project at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Feb 18, 2022 3:26:46 GMT -8
Thanks, expo. Unfortunately it was a, um, shall we say fruitless endeavor. I was connected from the first person i was put in touch with to the ticketmaster dude who apparently heads their metro stuff, and gave him a very precise response to the points raised in the release explaining how their concerns were unfounded, and I got back an absolutely unhinged response that boiled down to "why would we support something when there's nothing in it for us." So... yeah, the quality of person we're dealing with is not high. Not that that was ever in doubt. Oof. Might throw the emails up on Twitter for the masses. "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" ....and we all know what happened to the French Aristocracy after that. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 21, 2022 11:33:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 21, 2022 11:58:20 GMT -8
Concerningly, unlike the fred rosen screeds, this has the veneer of serious complaint rather unhinged ranting. It's bullshit, but it probably wouldn't get immediately dismissed in court like Fred's complaints would. Meaning they could feasibly delay things as it winds through court, even if they'll ultimately lose. The upside is all of their 'complaints' have very reasonable answers so maybe the courts will tell Bel Air to stuff it quickly. Who knows.
The worst is the air of dripping condescension, as if Bel-Air will not deign to give us its 'permission' to even think about potentially affecting their property values. Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 21, 2022 13:17:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 21, 2022 15:24:55 GMT -8
Concerningly, unlike the fred rosen screeds, this has the veneer of serious complaint rather unhinged ranting. It's bullshit, but it probably wouldn't get immediately dismissed in court like Fred's complaints would. Meaning they could feasibly delay things as it winds through court, even if they'll ultimately lose. The upside is all of their 'complaints' have very reasonable answers so maybe the courts will tell Bel Air to stuff it quickly. Who knows. The worst is the air of dripping condescension, as if Bel-Air will not deign to give us its 'permission' to even think about potentially affecting their property values. Jesus Christ. The part about tunneling under the reservoir triggering a tidal wave that destroys Bel-Air and the northern portion of UCLA is the most interesting to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Feb 21, 2022 15:29:25 GMT -8
Concerningly, unlike the fred rosen screeds, this has the veneer of serious complaint rather unhinged ranting. It's bullshit, but it probably wouldn't get immediately dismissed in court like Fred's complaints would. Meaning they could feasibly delay things as it winds through court, even if they'll ultimately lose. The upside is all of their 'complaints' have very reasonable answers so maybe the courts will tell Bel Air to stuff it quickly. Who knows. The worst is the air of dripping condescension, as if Bel-Air will not deign to give us its 'permission' to even think about potentially affecting their property values. Jesus Christ. The part about tunneling under the reservoir triggering a tidal wave that destroys Bel-Air and the northern portion of UCLA is the most interesting to me. Oh yes, and then there's that haha. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 10, 2022 15:17:04 GMT -8
I was just shown another absolutely unhinged email fred rosen sent to Stephanie Wiggins (and copied a bunch of other people on) - and he takes a weirdly specific veer into monorail advocacy amidst his otherwise-incoherent rant, using what feels like talking points. (he keeps repeating the 100-year-old technology line as one example). I really have to wonder if BYD's strategy, now that they were advanced along with Bechtel instead of advanced alone, is to get Bel Air to try to tank heavy rail. It is just... weird how passionate he sounds about the monorail when the rest of his ranting demeanor makes it very obvious that he thinks there shouldn't be a project at all. Here are the emails from former Ticketmaster CEO and current Bel-Air Association board member to Stephanie Wiggins: |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 14, 2022 11:50:27 GMT -8
You can see why I was so concerned about the BYD proposal from the onset. They've been working the disinformation angle from the beginning and it is now in the public discourse with useful idiots like Fred Rosen and others.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 15, 2022 12:31:07 GMT -8
Sepulveda scoping report out: www.dropbox.com/sh/0byerml83ks8dvy/AADrndj_9S5i-XuaNYZLq6Xca/Reports%20and%20Info/Scoping%20Summary%20Report%20-%20June%202022?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1Heavy rail support dwarfs monorail support, underground support is high overall, Caltrans warns about 405-adjacent construction, stakeholder support seems to be coalescing around Alt 5 (predictably), and no alternative refinements made for EIR, all alts will continued to be studied. All-in-all, pretty good news. As funds for this project may be easier to come by, despite its price (combined with the P3), i'd be unsurprised for metro to bite the bullet on cost and go for Alt 5 just to sate Sherman Oaks and take one potential obstacle out of the way, as it in no way makes it a worse project, and would allow the sides to come down as essentially Bel Air vs everyone. Plus, Najarian will lose his board seat if he loses his election, which he is right now. That would be another blow for BYD. When the decision is made on this, garcetti, his appointees, and najarian should be gone. Butts becomes one of the lonely few pro-BYD voices on the board (presuming caruso does not win, and that BYD doesn't start just buying new board members...) |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 15, 2022 20:45:38 GMT -8
Sepulveda scoping report out: www.dropbox.com/sh/0byerml83ks8dvy/AADrndj_9S5i-XuaNYZLq6Xca/Reports%20and%20Info/Scoping%20Summary%20Report%20-%20June%202022?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1Heavy rail support dwarfs monorail support, underground support is high overall, Caltrans warns about 405-adjacent construction, stakeholder support seems to be coalescing around Alt 5 (predictably), and no alternative refinements made for EIR, all alts will continued to be studied. All-in-all, pretty good news. As funds for this project may be easier to come by, despite its price (combined with the P3), i'd be unsurprised for metro to bite the bullet on cost and go for Alt 5 just to sate Sherman Oaks and take one potential obstacle out of the way, as it in no way makes it a worse project, and would allow the sides to come down as essentially Bel Air vs everyone. Plus, Najarian will lose his board seat if he loses his election, which he is right now. That would be another blow for BYD. When the decision is made on this, garcetti, his appointees, and najarian should be gone. Butts becomes one of the lonely few pro-BYD voices on the board (presuming caruso does not win, and that BYD doesn't start just buying new board members...) I wouldn't describe Butts as lonely--he has been able to get the board to vote against Metro staff recommendations on many occasions, as he seems to be the de facto leader of the "suburban" bloc. BYD was recently shortlisted as a potential transit technology provider for the Inglewood Transit Connector recently: www.cityofinglewood.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/13234?fileID=13658 |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jun 19, 2022 20:02:08 GMT -8
Alternative 6 please. Reasons:
• 4-car trains (barely longer than our 3-car LRT trains) at 2.5-minute peak frequencies (which is not that frequent actually, especially if it’s automated) isn’t enough capacity. Remember, this line will still be in service 100 years from now. Thing long-term.
• Preserves the possibility of future interlining / isn’t introducing a new technology
• The Sawtelle and Expo/Bundy terminus is superior, as it serves more dense neighborhoods and sets up a future extension down Centinela — serving new neighborhoods (Mar Vista, Culver West, and Playa Vista) — down to LAX
• Allows us to still extend this line up Van Nuys Blvd to Sylmar, as should’ve been the plan to begin with
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 20, 2022 1:44:57 GMT -8
Alternative 6 please. Reasons: • 4-car trains (barely longer than our 3-car LRT trains) at 2.5-minute peak frequencies (which is not that frequent actually, especially if it’s automated) isn’t enough capacity. Remember, this line will still be in service 100 years from now. Thing long-term. • Preserves the possibility of future interlining / isn’t introducing a new technology • The Sawtelle and Expo/Bundy terminus is superior, as it serves more dense neighborhoods and sets up a future extension down Centinela — serving new neighborhoods (Mar Vista, Culver West, and Playa Vista) — down to LAX • Allows us to still extend this line up Van Nuys Blvd to Sylmar, as should’ve been the plan to begin with The Bechtel proposal says they can reduce headways to 90 seconds. The CEQA notice says Alternative 6 would have peak headways of 4 minutes. If it’s P3 operated, the P3 firm would operate and maintain the fleet for 25 years or more, and they wouldn’t let there be any interlining, and besides, it would require a shutdown of service for several years and billions in construction cost just to build a wye. In any case, it’s probably possible to have the Bechtel style trains run on the existing heavy rail lines, just that old trains couldn’t run on the Sepulveda line. I think they threw Alternative 6 in there in case things don’t turn out well with either of the P3 proposers, but that option has many things going against it. It is less attractive to a P3 team if they must run driver-operated trains, cannot add a transit vehicle firm to their team and have to maintain larger fleets and stations. If it’s less attractive, the possibility for private financing and acceleration is less likely. Every Measure M line to date has had to shorten itself by several miles due to construction cost inflation (Foothill, East San Fernando Valley, West Santa Ana Branch and Eastside Gold Line). In this situation, the option that is several billions more expensive is advertising headways that are almost 2x longer than a cheaper option. It should be a no-brainer to save the billions and spend it elsewhere. Clamoring for the most expensive option (especially when it offers worst headways) just makes it more likely that a shortened line is built. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jun 21, 2022 9:43:39 GMT -8
Just today 06/21/2022 on KNX radio. Story about how Sepulveda pass most likely will be rail not monorail.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 27, 2022 16:02:16 GMT -8
Alternative 6 please. Reasons: • 4-car trains (barely longer than our 3-car LRT trains) at 2.5-minute peak frequencies (which is not that frequent actually, especially if it’s automated) isn’t enough capacity. Remember, this line will still be in service 100 years from now. Thing long-term. • Preserves the possibility of future interlining / isn’t introducing a new technology • The Sawtelle and Expo/Bundy terminus is superior, as it serves more dense neighborhoods and sets up a future extension down Centinela — serving new neighborhoods (Mar Vista, Culver West, and Playa Vista) — down to LAX • Allows us to still extend this line up Van Nuys Blvd to Sylmar, as should’ve been the plan to begin with The Bechtel proposal says they can reduce headways to 90 seconds. The CEQA notice says Alternative 6 would have peak headways of 4 minutes. If it’s P3 operated, the P3 firm would operate and maintain the fleet for 25 years or more, and they wouldn’t let there be any interlining, and besides, it would require a shutdown of service for several years and billions in construction cost just to build a wye. In any case, it’s probably possible to have the Bechtel style trains run on the existing heavy rail lines, just that old trains couldn’t run on the Sepulveda line. I think they threw Alternative 6 in there in case things don’t turn out well with either of the P3 proposers, but that option has many things going against it. It is less attractive to a P3 team if they must run driver-operated trains, cannot add a transit vehicle firm to their team and have to maintain larger fleets and stations. If it’s less attractive, the possibility for private financing and acceleration is less likely. Every Measure M line to date has had to shorten itself by several miles due to construction cost inflation (Foothill, East San Fernando Valley, West Santa Ana Branch and Eastside Gold Line). In this situation, the option that is several billions more expensive is advertising headways that are almost 2x longer than a cheaper option. It should be a no-brainer to save the billions and spend it elsewhere. Clamoring for the most expensive option (especially when it offers worst headways) just makes it more likely that a shortened line is built. Well the inter-operable argument is precisely what folks are using against the Monorail but its the same problem coming to roost here. Taxpayers will have to come to grips with the fact that it will be the same thing here with the Becthel proposal and if that proposal costs 30-40% more than the monorail for slightly more capacity then it really isn't worth it. However, one of the Becthel proposal's strengths have nothing to do with rolling stock but in construction and design methodology. They are using large single bore and spacing out station locations in such as manor that it doesn't require large cut and cover construction and large blocks of real estate to construct. If the same component can be utilized with our existing heavy rail vehicles or even LRVs in a longer train consist to handle the demand and capacity of this route then it becomes a win-win. However the unfortunate and short sighted thing Metro did was eliminate the LRT consideration from the beginning because of the capacity issues on East SFV. When it would have been easier to justify using Sepulveda Pass dollars for the grade separations of the stations between the Orange Line and I believe Roscoe Blvd and still operate the East SFV project. There's nothing in Measure M that prevents this, especially when it is learned through the environmental study that it is the capacity of the Sepulveda riders is what gives the need to upgrade a portion of the East SFV project. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 27, 2022 16:27:07 GMT -8
To me I think connections to the system is really the biggest glaring difference between monorail and heavy rail. The system connections are *awful* on monorail and will depress ridership massively.
But when speaking of the cost, remember that the capacity BYD touted is divorced from the cost they touted. The cost was based on shorter platforms while the stated capacity was based on longer platforms so every single station would need to be extended to actually hit the capacity they state, which is still lower than bechtel's potential max capacity. When you add in a UCLA station (even with Bel Air losing its mind I just don't think there is a way a direct UCLA station is left out) and account for the cost of the extreme mitigations caltrans will demand (remember, that's what killed SR60 eastside extension), the $6B will be closer to $9B or even $10B. Monorail will wind up costing almost the same as heavy rail for a quite significantly worse system.
And on top of that, remember that some of the cost gets covered via the P3 agreement anyway, taking that burden off taxpayers, AND this is the most shoo-in-for-federal-funds (which are now more widely available) project metro has ever fielded. Cost needn't be such a restraint here when the real value of the cheaper vs more expensive option is so vastly different.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 27, 2022 16:45:32 GMT -8
To me I think connections to the system is really the biggest glaring difference between monorail and heavy rail. The system connections are *awful* on monorail and will depress ridership massively. But when speaking of the cost, remember that the capacity BYD touted is divorced from the cost they touted. The cost was based on shorter platforms while the stated capacity was based on longer platforms so every single station would need to be extended to actually hit the capacity they state, which is still lower than bechtel's potential max capacity. When you add in a UCLA station (even with Bel Air losing its mind I just don't think there is a way a direct UCLA station is left out) and account for the cost of the extreme mitigations caltrans will demand (remember, that's what killed SR60 eastside extension), the $6B will be closer to $9B or even $10B. Monorail will wind up costing almost the same as heavy rail for a quite significantly worse system. And on top of that, remember that some of the cost gets covered via the P3 agreement anyway, taking that burden off taxpayers, AND this is the most shoo-in-for-federal-funds (which are now more widely available) project metro has ever fielded. Cost needn't be such a restraint here when the real value of the cheaper vs more expensive option is so vastly different. It wasn't the Caltrans mitigation that killed SR-60 alternative, it was the superfund site. That is a mitigation disaster. Are the costs really burdened off of taxpayers in a P3? I don't think so because there are more capital costs, which translates to taxpayers needing to have create a larger share in proportion to the operating costs. So every dollar matters. Personally my preference is leaning towards the Bechtel proposal but not for the trains but because of the methodology on how to construct the line will be useful in other lines. From a transit nerd perspective, they have taken the methodical approach of building LRT and used it for a subway line. But to say Cost needn't be a restraint (especially when going after Federal Funds) is naïve considering that Metro is not only trying to complete this project but many others across LA County-under Measure M- at the same time while continuing to operate an existing system of buses and trains. When you don't reign in on costs and not show fiscal restraint these are the exact problems that let to bankrupting the agency in the 90s. I lived through that nonsense once, I sure as hell don't want to see it happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 27, 2022 23:06:20 GMT -8
To me I think connections to the system is really the biggest glaring difference between monorail and heavy rail. The system connections are *awful* on monorail and will depress ridership massively. But when speaking of the cost, remember that the capacity BYD touted is divorced from the cost they touted. The cost was based on shorter platforms while the stated capacity was based on longer platforms so every single station would need to be extended to actually hit the capacity they state, which is still lower than bechtel's potential max capacity. When you add in a UCLA station (even with Bel Air losing its mind I just don't think there is a way a direct UCLA station is left out) and account for the cost of the extreme mitigations caltrans will demand (remember, that's what killed SR60 eastside extension), the $6B will be closer to $9B or even $10B. Monorail will wind up costing almost the same as heavy rail for a quite significantly worse system. And on top of that, remember that some of the cost gets covered via the P3 agreement anyway, taking that burden off taxpayers, AND this is the most shoo-in-for-federal-funds (which are now more widely available) project metro has ever fielded. Cost needn't be such a restraint here when the real value of the cheaper vs more expensive option is so vastly different. It wasn't the Caltrans mitigation that killed SR-60 alternative, it was the superfund site. That is a mitigation disaster. Are the costs really burdened off of taxpayers in a P3? I don't think so because there are more capital costs, which translates to taxpayers needing to have create a larger share in proportion to the operating costs. So every dollar matters. Personally my preference is leaning towards the Bechtel proposal but not for the trains but because of the methodology on how to construct the line will be useful in other lines. From a transit nerd perspective, they have taken the methodical approach of building LRT and used it for a subway line. But to say Cost needn't be a restraint (especially when going after Federal Funds) is naïve considering that Metro is not only trying to complete this project but many others across LA County-under Measure M- at the same time while continuing to operate an existing system of buses and trains. When you don't reign in on costs and not show fiscal restraint these are the exact problems that let to bankrupting the agency in the 90s. I lived through that nonsense once, I sure as hell don't want to see it happen again. They designed the alignment to skirt the superfund site, so they did not need to mitigate the superfund site. Most of the staff report recommending dismissing the SR-60 alternative focused on Caltrans demands: boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2020-0027/ |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 1, 2022 6:58:27 GMT -8
P3 seems like a way to spend operating funds on construction, since the operator will be paying back the bonds (or dividends to equity investors) they took out for construction with the operating money. Something I'm sure the BRU would love.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 1, 2022 11:14:51 GMT -8
P3 seems like a way to spend operating funds on construction, since the operator will be paying back the bonds (or dividends to equity investors) they took out for construction with the operating money. Something I'm sure the BRU would love. That's basically right. Measures R/M provides 35% of sales tax money for transit construction and 20% for operations. The "normal" process was to get loans/bonds to pay for transit construction to be paid back with the future 35% of sales tax that is dedicated for construction. But the amount you can borrow is limited to the future estimated 35% of sales tax. In a P3, the construction contractor will be paid for both construction and at least 25 years of operations, and the contractor takes out bonds to pay for construction based on the amount they will be paid for for operations. |
|
