|
|
Post by Quixote on Jul 24, 2022 16:56:56 GMT -8
I'm all in on A4/A5 because of the innovative use of single-bore tunneling, realizing that platforms could be easily extended to accommodate longer trainsets beyond the max 4-car consists they currently are proposing. The flexibility, cost savings, and full automation from the get-go have me sold. It provides a great model for future subway projects like Purple Line phase 4 and Vermont HRT.
What I'm hoping for though is that they consider rolling stock with the same specs as the Bredas. The extra 16" significantly increases standing room — probably not double the capacity, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. Some of the world's top rapid transit systems operate lines with narrower rolling stock (NYC Subway's A Division, most of the London Underground, Paris Metro).
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 27, 2022 22:51:23 GMT -8
Economies of scale are important for keeping rolling stock costs down, both for acquisition and maintenance. The B/D are built to the same specs as MARTA, WMATA, and the majority of NYC. Being able to piggyback on those orders, or at the very least share orders with the B/D, is a huge advantage that should not be given up under any circumstances. Vendor lock-in is no bueno.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 27, 2022 23:21:42 GMT -8
Economies of scale are important for keeping rolling stock costs down, both for acquisition and maintenance. The B/D are built to the same specs as MARTA, WMATA, and the majority of NYC. Being able to piggyback on those orders, or at the very least share orders with the B/D, is a huge advantage that should not be given up under any circumstances. Vendor lock-in is no bueno. I think you need to show the math if making such a comment about cost savings. The recent cost to replace all the B/D line trains and add cars for the Purple Line extension and service expansion was under $700 million (both bidders bid under $700 million): metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4776276&GUID=8A27A478-3871-42C2-B354-82D0BB08FEFEThe cost of building stations to accommodate B/D-type rolling stock is basically going to be around $1 billion per station by the time Sepulveda is built, and most construction time is actually spent on excavating and building the stations--the Crenshaw tunnels were done in 2017, the Regional Connector tunnels were done in 2018, and Purple Line Section 1 tunnels were done in 2021--we just wait years more for work to be complete, with most of that work on the stations). The Bechtel proposal calls for reducing construction costs and timeline by reducing the station length by 60%, and using shorter automated cars with increased headways to limit passenger dwell time (so that you don't need large stations). If shorter length cars can reduce construction costs by just $2 billion (and it might save even more), and allow you to build subways faster, it seems to be worth sacrificing the "economies of scale" of having to buy/maintain different rolling stock. If economies of scales are really important, the B/D lines probably also could accommodate the newer trains (maybe some retrofitting to accommodate its automation system, though I've heard B/D has been designed for automation already), just that older B/D trains could not run on Sepulveda. You could probably save operations money and increase frequencies by converting B/D to those automatic trains. Finally, if Sepulveda is operated as a P3, the P3 contractor would be the one that owns and maintains the vehicles, so Metro wouldn't care about those issues--but the contractor would care to have stations and vehicles that are cost-effective. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 29, 2022 7:02:42 GMT -8
You're conflating one-time and recurring costs, and pulling numbers out of your ass. If Sepulveda has bespoke rolling stock, Metro will have to pay that cost premium for centuries. P3 contracts don't last forever, and the private contractor, since they would not be handling orders for the B/D, would not be incentivized to keep things consistent. Depending on contract terms, they may be incentivized the other way. Is there that much money to be saved by making platforms 280 feet instead of 300 so they could be compatible with 75-foot cars? You're suggesting at least a 15% cost premium for the entire project for a 7% increase in platform size. And these are inside the tunnel bore, so no additional excavation would be required. If economies of scales are really important, the B/D lines probably also could accommodate the newer trains (maybe some retrofitting to accommodate its automation system, though I've heard B/D has been designed for automation already), just that older B/D trains could not run on Sepulveda. You can't do that if the car widths/lengths, platform heights, or power systems are different. Which is why we shouldn't allow them to be. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 29, 2022 10:37:17 GMT -8
You're conflating one-time and recurring costs, and pulling numbers out of your ass. If Sepulveda has bespoke rolling stock, Metro will have to pay that cost premium for centuries. P3 contracts don't last forever, and the private contractor, since they would not be handling orders for the B/D, would not be incentivized to keep things consistent. Depending on contract terms, they may be incentivized the other way. Is there that much money to be saved by making platforms 280 feet instead of 300 so they could be compatible with 75-foot cars? You're suggesting at least a 15% cost premium for the entire project for a 7% increase in platform size. And these are inside the tunnel bore, so no additional excavation would be required. If economies of scales are really important, the B/D lines probably also could accommodate the newer trains (maybe some retrofitting to accommodate its automation system, though I've heard B/D has been designed for automation already), just that older B/D trains could not run on Sepulveda. You can't do that if the car widths/lengths, platform heights, or power systems are different. Which is why we shouldn't allow them to be. The cars and the line are not bespoke, they should run on the same rail gauge and there are systems out there that use the same cars. According to Bechtel, other transit agencies use similar cars in Vancouver, Sydney, Singapore, Barcelona, and Copenhagen, and future lines in Montreal and Toronto will use the same types of cars. I don't think the ability to find railcar manufacturers are as difficult as you make it out to be--their last order for the B/D line railcars was with a contractor that never manufactured cars for the same type of system before. Their station design calls for a 360 foot station box instead of Metro's standard 900 feet station box, which is a 60% reduction in station box size. They call for a 280 foot platform length, and they say that Metro's current platforms are 400 feet, not 300 feet, so it is a 43% increase in platform length, not 7%.  If the car lengths are different from the B/D car lengths, you could still operate in B/D stations, they just wouldn't take as much space in the station. They did say they can use a standard third rail power system. They will run on the same rail gauge, so the width shouldn't be too dissimilar, but perhaps it could require retrofitting stations to match (which would need to be done anyway since these trains call for automation and platform screen doors). The Bechtel and Metro traditional design alternatives all call for cut-and-cover stations, so they will not be built in the tunnel bore (see image above which says cut-and-cover stations are their proposal) which are decreased by smaller station boxes. Its looking like people are concluding that single-bore for stations is not worth it--look at the extravagant costs for the BART single-bore extension, which will be building stations within the tunnel bore. They will use a single-bore tunnel to put the two tracks through the mountain, though. I think the conclusion is that because stations need a large space, if you want to build stations within a tunnel's single-bore, the rest of the miles of tunnels will be station-sized tunnels, which requires a very large boring machine and is wasteful and expensive. A lot of the Bechtel proposal focuses on excavation savings based on their design. It should be easy to see what the capital cost difference is because an alternative with traditional Metro design is still being studied in the EIR. I don't think it will be just 7% more expensive, but we will see. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jul 31, 2022 5:43:11 GMT -8
To be honest I’m not even sure what you guys are debating. The cost of the rolling stock?
That makes me wonder - are all the rolling stock of LRT and HRT interchangeable? (Can the LRT stock used on the Green Line the same exact specs as the LRT on the blue line? - and will the HRT on the Sepulveda line be the same as what’s to be used on the Purple)
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jul 31, 2022 19:49:32 GMT -8
All the LRT rolling stock is interchangeable.
A train on the blue line can run on the green, gold, expo and soon K line.
The Sepulveda line will depend on which option is selected (Bechtel vs Red/Purple HRT)
It is my understanding that Bechtels version will use HRT trains with different specifications.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Aug 17, 2022 10:28:41 GMT -8
The cars and the line are not bespoke, they should run on the same rail gauge and there are systems out there that use the same cars. According to Bechtel, other transit agencies use similar cars in Vancouver, Sydney, Singapore, Barcelona, and Copenhagen, and future lines in Montreal and Toronto will use the same types of cars. I don't think the ability to find railcar manufacturers are as difficult as you make it out to be--their last order for the B/D line railcars was with a contractor that never manufactured cars for the same type of system before. If it is not possible to share rolling stock with the existing B/D or LRT lines, then it is bespoke as far as Metro is concerned, despite your desire to redefine that word. Sydney doesn't even have a metro, so I don't see how we'd use the same rolling stock. Wouldn't it be better to share orders domestically instead of internationally? I said absolutely nothing about difficulty finding manufacturers. What the f**k are you talking about? Their station design calls for a 360 foot station box instead of Metro's standard 900 feet station box, which is a 60% reduction in station box size. They call for a 280 foot platform length, and they say that Metro's current platforms are 400 feet, not 300 feet, so it is a 43% increase in platform length, not 7%. Okay, fair. I only skimmed the report when it first came out and got their cost savings pitch wrong. Metro's platforms aren't 400, they're at least 450 (75*6). But 300 is 7% more than 280, and would be compatible with 4-car trains. If the car lengths are different from the B/D car lengths, you could still operate in B/D stations, they just wouldn't take as much space in the station. They did say they can use a standard third rail power system. They will run on the same rail gauge, so the width shouldn't be too dissimilar, but perhaps it could require retrofitting stations to match (which would need to be done anyway since these trains call for automation and platform screen doors). But then you'd have platform space that you built but can't use, which is stupid. Third rail power systems are not "standard" and automatically compatible. Just ask LIRR and Metro-North. Sharing a track gauge does not mean compatible loading gauge, either. NJT can't fit in the PATH tunnels. "Maybe if we don't f**k it up badly enough we can hack around it" isn't much of an argument when the option to just not f**k it up in the first place exists. The Bechtel and Metro traditional design alternatives all call for cut-and-cover stations, so they will not be built in the tunnel bore (see image above which says cut-and-cover stations are their proposal) which are decreased by smaller station boxes. Its looking like people are concluding that single-bore for stations is not worth it--look at the extravagant costs for the BART single-bore extension, which will be building stations within the tunnel bore. They will use a single-bore tunnel to put the two tracks through the mountain, though. I think the conclusion is that because stations need a large space, if you want to build stations within a tunnel's single-bore, the rest of the miles of tunnels will be station-sized tunnels, which requires a very large boring machine and is wasteful and expensive. A lot of the Bechtel proposal focuses on excavation savings based on their design. It should be easy to see what the capital cost difference is because an alternative with traditional Metro design is still being studied in the EIR. I don't think it will be just 7% more expensive, but we will see. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 25, 2022 10:24:06 GMT -8
Their station design calls for a 360 foot station box instead of Metro's standard 900 feet station box, which is a 60% reduction in station box size. They call for a 280 foot platform length, and they say that Metro's current platforms are 400 feet, not 300 feet, so it is a 43% increase in platform length, not 7%. Okay, fair. I only skimmed the report when it first came out and got their cost savings pitch wrong. Metro's platforms aren't 400, they're at least 450 (75*6). But 300 is 7% more than 280, and would be compatible with 4-car trains. If the car lengths are different from the B/D car lengths, you could still operate in B/D stations, they just wouldn't take as much space in the station. They did say they can use a standard third rail power system. They will run on the same rail gauge, so the width shouldn't be too dissimilar, but perhaps it could require retrofitting stations to match (which would need to be done anyway since these trains call for automation and platform screen doors). But then you'd have platform space that you built but can't use, which is stupid. Third rail power systems are not "standard" and automatically compatible. Just ask LIRR and Metro-North. Sharing a track gauge does not mean compatible loading gauge, either. NJT can't fit in the PATH tunnels. "Maybe if we don't f**k it up badly enough we can hack around it" isn't much of an argument when the option to just not f**k it up in the first place exists. The Bechtel and Metro traditional design alternatives all call for cut-and-cover stations, so they will not be built in the tunnel bore (see image above which says cut-and-cover stations are their proposal) which are decreased by smaller station boxes. Its looking like people are concluding that single-bore for stations is not worth it--look at the extravagant costs for the BART single-bore extension, which will be building stations within the tunnel bore. They will use a single-bore tunnel to put the two tracks through the mountain, though. I think the conclusion is that because stations need a large space, if you want to build stations within a tunnel's single-bore, the rest of the miles of tunnels will be station-sized tunnels, which requires a very large boring machine and is wasteful and expensive. A lot of the Bechtel proposal focuses on excavation savings based on their design. It should be easy to see what the capital cost difference is because an alternative with traditional Metro design is still being studied in the EIR. I don't think it will be just 7% more expensive, but we will see. That's why a careful analysis of the cost benefit of a P3 here is important. There are the capital costs, operational costs and system-wide cost to a new variation if LA now has a third style rolling stock that it is not interoperable to the two previous designs, unless they decided to change the entire B and D to the new style for Sepulveda Pass. An example of this we are seeing some of these headaches with the WSAB because they are not looking at system-wide interoperability the way to improve Washington/Flower and Pico Station is now going to cost more in the long run because they never studied utilizing the WSAB tunnel through Fashion District to Metro Center as a way to replace the Washington Blvd street running and increase capacity to the network. This $330M is not going to spend a damn thing other than maybe an additional platform at Pico Station. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Dec 4, 2022 18:01:52 GMT -8
I commented in one of the WSAB meetings that if they needed to double up service between Slauson and 7th to avoid capacity issues, then they should just send trains from Long Beach onto WSAB and cut the existing A at Slauson (so outbound delays from Washington/Flower wouldn't matter as much, and inbound delays could be lessened). Shortly after, the politicians pushed hard for Metro to drop the good alignment for the Union Station one. I got a strong feeling it was because they didn't want "those people" using "their" Metro line.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 5, 2022 17:17:11 GMT -8
I commented in one of the WSAB meetings that if they needed to double up service between Slauson and 7th to avoid capacity issues, then they should just send trains from Long Beach onto WSAB and cut the existing A at Slauson (so outbound delays from Washington/Flower wouldn't matter as much, and inbound delays could be lessened). Shortly after, the politicians pushed hard for Metro to drop the good alignment for the Union Station one. I got a strong feeling it was because they didn't want "those people" using "their" Metro line. However the last laugh will be on the WSAB folks because the portion through City of LA requires Measure M share of those dollars to come from the Central Area, so there is some wiggle room where a Fashion District/7th Street Metro Center route will return. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 1, 2023 10:39:34 GMT -8
storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/fbe1a5e154b6447b86507e4bb87159cfMetro is asking for comments on station placement. They went out of the way to not mention Alt 1-3 is monorail which I'm sure is designed to boost positive comments for Alt 1-3. But it is obvious that station placement is horrible for Alt 1-3. We should definitely put in supportive comments for Alt 4-6. I don't have a strong preference for elevated or underground in SFV but I know some of you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Nov 8, 2023 13:07:27 GMT -8
Looks like that METRO has made the decision to go with heavy rail not monorail from the valley to the west side. Saw a post yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by joquitter on Nov 9, 2023 9:36:51 GMT -8
Looks like that METRO has made the decision to go with heavy rail not monorail from the valley to the west side. Saw a post yesterday. where? last i checked they haven't chosen a LPA yet. |
|
