|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jun 25, 2018 12:49:55 GMT -8
In the end, what’s best for the transit needs of Los Angeles county? What will best reduce the traffic and congestion of LA county? Isn’t that Metro’s chief objective?
I don’t think it’s worth spending over a billion dollars on something that is intended to be a glorified neighborhood shuttle.
IMO if they don’t go with one of those three options they will be regretting it for decades to come
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you guys here but are you telling me that the better call is to go with the 14 stations on a 9 mile corridor?! I mean that thing is going to be painfully slow. This needs grade separation and it needs far fewer stations.
What’s more likely to have a higher ridership? A line that stops seemingly every other block and just goes from one end of the valley to the other - or a line that has fast service and can take the average Angelino from home (in the valley) to work or class (on the Westside) to the airport (LAX) to where they wanna play (Inglewood).
Sure you are talking the difference between $1.3B and maybe 3,4 or even 5B.
But you’re also talking the difference between what could be a white elephant that doesn’t meet ridership expectations and a line that becomes one of the most heavily used lines in the United States, if not the world.
IMO, it’s worth taking money from other projects to make sure they get this one (ESFV+Sepulveda) right. I know I know, the politics of it all. But something tells me voters will be more likely to feel as if they made the correct choice at the ballot box if in 2028 they had 3 or 4 major projects completed and successfully making a major difference as opposed to 12 or 13 half assed projects with a Bike lane over here, a half priced senior citizen rail fare program funded over there... so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 25, 2018 15:28:21 GMT -8
Metro's ridership analysis basically suggests that very few people will ride ESFV end to end. They will ride it for a couple miles and transfer to an E-W bus. So the end to end run time is not a priority but frequency and connection to the bus lines are crucial. So to answer your rhetorical question, yes, the 14 station really does increase ridership because the primarily focus was on people traveling within SFV. Although I suspect 1 or 2 may still not make the cut on the FEIR. And yes, a BRT would have achieved much of the same result but as I mentioned before, Metro owed SFV a rail line so this had to be it.
If Metro had combined the ESFV and Sepulveda Pass corridor into one study like many of us advocated many years ago, the result would have been very different. The train will likely be a heavy rail and will probably have 4 maybe 5 stations on Van Nuys Blvd. Does that actually increase transit ridership on Van Nuys (and within SFV)? Probably no. Will it improve transit ridership on Sepulveda Pass? Probably but the Sepulveda Pass has enough ridership to stand on its own regardless of whether the line has a branch extension to Sylmar.
What we are (at least I'm) saying is that since Metro already made the decision 6 years ago, there is no point crying over spilled milk. Let ESFV focus on transit movements within SFV, while Sepulveda Pass project can focus on SFV to Westside connection. It's still not too late for us to advocate for something useful for the Sepulveda line - like seamless transfers to/from ESFV, and proper alignments that maximizes ridership and connections to Purple and Expo lines. And preserve future extension possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 25, 2018 16:20:15 GMT -8
In the end, what’s best for the transit needs of Los Angeles county? What will best reduce the traffic and congestion of LA county? Isn’t that Metro’s chief objective? I don’t think it’s worth spending over a billion dollars on something that is intended to be a glorified neighborhood shuttle. IMO if they don’t go with one of those three options they will be regretting it for decades to come Maybe I’m misunderstanding you guys here but are you telling me that the better call is to go with the 14 stations on a 9 mile corridor?! I mean that thing is going to be painfully slow. This needs grade separation and it needs far fewer stations. What’s more likely to have a higher ridership? A line that stops seemingly every other block and just goes from one end of the valley to the other - or a line that has fast service and can take the average Angelino from home (in the valley) to work or class (on the Westside) to the airport (LAX) to where they wanna play (Inglewood). Sure you are talking the difference between $1.3B and maybe 3,4 or even 5B. But you’re also talking the difference between what could be a white elephant that doesn’t meet ridership expectations and a line that becomes one of the most heavily used lines in the United States, if not the world. IMO, it’s worth taking money from other projects to make sure they get this one (ESFV+Sepulveda) right. I know I know, the politics of it all. But something tells me voters will be more likely to feel as if they made the correct choice at the ballot box if in 2028 they had 3 or 4 major projects completed and successfully making a major difference as opposed to 12 or 13 half assed projects with a Bike lane over here, a half priced senior citizen rail fare program funded over there... so on and so forth. Measure M commits to the project breaking ground by 2021, finishing by 2027 and that no project can take away funds from other projects to delay other start dates. A hypothetical 2028 ballot measure will still require countywide support and there would be more opponents if there are projects that were delayed or had their funds diverted elsewhere. Finally, the public outreach polling for the ESFV project had a majority preferring at-grade to the subway inclusion, and specifically more preferring at-grade and an earlier project delivery to waiting for funding to be secured for a subway. metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3532671&GUID=8A3BB2B0-0C2A-4621-A494-456D18DCB6FB&Options=ID%7CText%7C&FullText=1By 2028, if the 28 by 2028 plan is followed, there will be the Purple Line, Regional Connector, Crenshaw/LAX Line, West Santa Ana Branch Line, Sepulveda Corridor, East San Fernando Valley Corridor, and the Foothill Gold Line to Montclair. Measure M only had roughly 1/3 of its votes from LA city and needed the votes elsewhere to pass, you won’t get those votes by not giving those COGs projects or taking away funding and projects that were promised to them. If the Gateway Cities or San Gabriel Valley COG does not support a measure, it will fail: libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/MeasureM/Voting-MeasureMbyCity.xlsx |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 26, 2018 10:08:20 GMT -8
In the end, what’s best for the transit needs of Los Angeles county? What will best reduce the traffic and congestion of LA county? Isn’t that Metro’s chief objective? I don’t think it’s worth spending over a billion dollars on something that is intended to be a glorified neighborhood shuttle. IMO if they don’t go with one of those three options they will be regretting it for decades to come Maybe I’m misunderstanding you guys here but are you telling me that the better call is to go with the 14 stations on a 9 mile corridor?! I mean that thing is going to be painfully slow. This needs grade separation and it needs far fewer stations. What’s more likely to have a higher ridership? A line that stops seemingly every other block and just goes from one end of the valley to the other - or a line that has fast service and can take the average Angelino from home (in the valley) to work or class (on the Westside) to the airport (LAX) to where they wanna play (Inglewood). Sure you are talking the difference between $1.3B and maybe 3,4 or even 5B. But you’re also talking the difference between what could be a white elephant that doesn’t meet ridership expectations and a line that becomes one of the most heavily used lines in the United States, if not the world. IMO, it’s worth taking money from other projects to make sure they get this one (ESFV+Sepulveda) right. I know I know, the politics of it all. But something tells me voters will be more likely to feel as if they made the correct choice at the ballot box if in 2028 they had 3 or 4 major projects completed and successfully making a major difference as opposed to 12 or 13 half assed projects with a Bike lane over here, a half priced senior citizen rail fare program funded over there... so on and so forth. Well that's the thing with infrastructure innit, in the united states, we get excited when there is ridership on a rail line above 20,000 a day, in other parts of the world they want ridership on a rail line to be a million a day. In LA, we build rail lines where there is projected ridership in the 15,000 per day (and up) range, the ESFV with fourteen stations is projecting at 30,000 and up per day, and that is just with local traffic. so there is definite demand here, and it's moderately offensive to the community around the corridor to call service for that level of demand a glorified shuttle. At a station every half mile, that's pretty close to an ideal station spacing to maximize ridership and line utility by all global transit best practices. In LA we've tended to ignore those best practices and standards and underbuild the spacing of rail transit stations due to community opposition or a lack of funds, and those rail lines with your wider station spacing still are not setting speed records even though they have fewer stations. If you were to cut the ESFV by 45% to eight stations, your end to end time would only save a few minutes, given it is at grade and constrained by traffic no matter the number of stations, but you would potentially cut the ridership of the line by 45% as well. You're probably looking at closer to a 30% ridership reduction, so instead of carrying 30,000 ppl / day it would be carrying 20,000 ppl / day. And by eliminating stations, you're also causing adverse impacts to transit users across the valley, because most riders who need to use the rail line, but begin with a E/W bus trip will make sure to use one of the 8 roads that can transfer to a station. This means those 8 bus routes become much more crowded resulting in poorer service on the feed, fewer new transit users recruited (because the eight bus lines are so uncomfortably crowded) and the abandoned six bus routes without stations become much less used and are more costly to operate which means they will get service cuts. Additionally, only super commuters are traveling end-to-end, from Sylmar to the Orange line, and they are probably better served by increases in commuter service options, which are handled by metrolink, not metro. You seem to be frustrated that this is a community oriented rail line, not a commuter oriented rail line, but that is partly because of the realities of transit in the area in question. there is no transit ridership crossing the sepulveda pass, there are only automobiles crossing the pass, transit dependent riders are functionally segregated from crossing the pass because there are so few options to do so. This makes it very hard to model whether or not there is any end-to-end ridership demand, from Sylmar to the Orange Line, or longer range from the Orange Line to LAX. Because no alternative exists, the only option is to use the automobile. But even if I were say a super commuter, one of the 250,000 people living in Santa Clarita, and I wanted to commute via future rail to a job in Santa Monica, would I really take the train? First I'd get up at 5:30 get ready and then probably drive to a park and ride at the Newhall metrolink station and get on the 7AM train. I'd take it to the Sylmar stop, and take a 7:20 south bound train on the ESFV train. at 8:15 I'd exit at Wilshire Westwood and board a purple line train going west/south to Expo/Bundy. There I'd board the Expo line west at 825 and ride it to my destination in Santa Monica. I'd walk the last bit and probably get to work at 9. Or I could get up at 6:30, leave at 7;30, drive for two hours and get to my job at 9:30 and bitch about traffic and not suffer any consequences in my white collar job for the traffic induced difference between 900 and 930. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 26, 2018 13:55:33 GMT -8
The truth is, we need a *system* designed on many layers, including commuter rail, local rail, buses, bikes, pedestrians and ride share. But that's not what we have. What we have is a set of rail projects, each without enough funding to really do it right, each conceived separately and with only a vague concept of its purpose, with everybody wanting it to meet their every expectation.
This project is a perfect example of this. People want a stop near them. But they also want to get to their job in the L.A. Basin. In a reasonable amount of time. And there's no money for express tracks, so you can't do both.
So it once again comes down to the question of purpose. What is this rail project being built to accomplish?
I may be wrong, but I just don't see riders deciding whether or not to take this line based on walking distance. In the SF Valley (as in most burbs), that last mile is with a car. And with a car, 1/2-mile spacing vs one-mile spacing makes zero difference.
My opinion: they should build this with closer to one-mile spacing. Eliminate some of the lower-ridership stops. I would guess these are Vanowen, Laurel Canyon and Paxton.
Then, bulk it up with improved bus service along the route. And support it with land use policies which promote greater density.
And above all, make sure this can be easily connected to the Orange Line, when we finally get our priorities straight and decide to convert that line to LRT.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jun 26, 2018 20:00:50 GMT -8
As an actual resident of the SFV, I find the placement of the stations both reasonable and a good thing. Arm chair quarterbacking, and saying no station for you, would have brought fury upon Metro. I have previously stated my opposition to one particular station but that is water under the bridge even if it gets built.
The thing that is unknown at this time, and for some time to come, is how the Van Nuys Line and the Sepulveda pass are merged and whether they operate interchangeably. That is the biggest issue that will have the biggest repercussions for the future. That should be the focus. I drove over the Sepulveda pass for years and I loath that drive. I will take transit and preferably a one seat ride. I hope others can be persuaded and it will be easier to do that if it is a one seat ride.
Metro is going to build another BRT in the north San Fernando valley, they are studying it now. My guess is that it will eventually go on Nordhoff because that is your typical wide valley street and it will serve CSUN (which has been complaining to Metro for years) and hit downtown Northridge. I think Metro will eventually have to do something on Reseda Blvd. Anyway, this is going on a tangent and Metro is studying their bus service right now.......we need to evaluate that when Metro releases that plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 28, 2018 16:55:53 GMT -8
Metro board approved the LPA now we move into FEIR territory which should be our next year, then two years of utility relocation hell with the less awful heavy construction beginning in 2021.
|
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jun 29, 2018 5:47:47 GMT -8
The truth is, we need a *system* designed on many layers, including commuter rail, local rail, buses, bikes, pedestrians and ride share. But that's not what we have. What we have is a set of rail projects, each without enough funding to really do it right, each conceived separately and with only a vague concept of its purpose, with everybody wanting it to meet their every expectation. BOOM. You nailed it. The way Metro is doing things is the way a mediocre city would do it. A city that doesn’t know what they are doing. The only other major city that does rapid transit so wrong is Philadelphia (with the exception of their commuter rail if you call that rapid). If LA wants to have a transit system that a world class city like LA deserves then they need to totally change the way they are planning out and building this system. The whole light rail and heavy rail intertwined thing is perfectly fine, Boston does this. But if LA wants a system like Washington, Boston or even New York - they need to start making the investment. Now I know that might sound like a ridiculous statement considering LA county residents have taxed themselves not once but twice for transit. But again, as metrocenter stated it’s all about individual projects and plus a lot of that Measure money goes toward things like freeways and bike lanes and not enough to doing these projects right. You do them wrong and no one rides/uses them or you have to do it again a second time, either way that’s wasting money. I’m still hoping somewhere along the line something gets done here. Because if this is just a free standing light rail line with 14 stations and not grade separated then this will be a white elephant boondoggle that sours voters on mass transit and on taxing themselves for it. Either commit to making Sepulveda LRT subway and make ESFV totally grade separated (underground, aerial or at street level) and reduce stations to a number like 8 - OR - extend the Sepulveda HRT line to Van Nuys MetroLink and make ESFV a feeder streetcar or high end BRT southward from Sylmar to the Van Nuys MetroLink - OR - the best option, commit to ESFV being HRT which is of course unlikely It still shocks me no one on the board at Metro or no one in community meetings has stepped in and said wait a minute ... this thing isn’t going to be effective if it doesn’t become one with Sepulveda considering 90% of Sepulveda riders are going to be people living in the Valley ! .. How has no one of influence said anything ?!?!?!??! |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 29, 2018 8:23:57 GMT -8
The truth is, we need a *system* designed on many layers, including commuter rail, local rail, buses, bikes, pedestrians and ride share. But that's not what we have. What we have is a set of rail projects, each without enough funding to really do it right, each conceived separately and with only a vague concept of its purpose, with everybody wanting it to meet their every expectation. BOOM. You nailed it. The way Metro is doing things is the way a mediocre city would do it. A city that doesn’t know what they are doing. The only other major city that does rapid transit so wrong is Philadelphia (with the exception of their commuter rail if you call that rapid). If LA wants to have a transit system that a world class city like LA deserves then they need to totally change the way they are planning out and building this system. The whole light rail and heavy rail intertwined thing is perfectly fine, Boston does this. But if LA wants a system like Washington, Boston or even New York - they need to start making the investment. Now I know that might sound like a ridiculous statement considering LA county residents have taxed themselves not once but twice for transit. But again, as metrocenter stated it’s all about individual projects and plus a lot of that Measure money goes toward things like freeways and bike lanes and not enough to doing these projects right. You do them wrong and no one rides/uses them or you have to do it again a second time, either way that’s wasting money. I’m still hoping somewhere along the line something gets done here. Because if this is just a free standing light rail line with 14 stations and not grade separated then this will be a white elephant boondoggle that sours voters on mass transit and on taxing themselves for it. Either commit to making Sepulveda LRT subway and make ESFV totally grade separated (underground, aerial or at street level) and reduce stations to a number like 8 - OR - extend the Sepulveda HRT line to Van Nuys MetroLink and make ESFV a feeder streetcar or high end BRT southward from Sylmar to the Van Nuys MetroLink - OR - the best option, commit to ESFV being HRT which is of course unlikely It still shocks me no one on the board at Metro or no one in community meetings has stepped in and said wait a minute ... this thing isn’t going to be effective if it doesn’t become one with Sepulveda considering 90% of Sepulveda riders are going to be people living in the Valley ! .. How has no one of influence said anything ?!?!?!??! Because the HRT station palaces on the purple line cost $500,000,000 each to build and take eleven years each to build, and HRT stations can’t be built simultaneously because the funding mechanism of R and M is only making some money available annually, that means the best we can hope for is semi-sequential construction as with the current three phase one purple stations that are staggered about a year apart. For the eight stations of the ESFV you propose, it would cost four billion for stations and take about twenty years to build. Four another eight stations on the sepulveda corridor to expo would cost another four billion and also take twenty years to build And that is just the cost and timeline of our custom HRT station palaces, tunneling is somewhat cheaper, but you also have to build track, electrical infrastructure, relocate utilities, spend twenty years and billions jet grouting the route every two hundred meters for cross passages, two years of additional construction chopping up the tunnels every two hundred meters for cross passages etc etc etc hRT built like the purple line is extraordinarily expensive and time consuming, and there simply isn’t twenty five billion and twenty years of time to spend on one 45 km line from sylmar to lax. There are two other ways to build HRt, cut and cover, which all the business and people on the line route hate and vociferously oppose for nearly a hundred years now (which is why it has been barely used as a dominant construction method in the last hundred years) The other method is single bore wide diameter deep tunneling. This saves a lot of time and money in other countries mainly because they buy multiple TBMs (which cost about 15 million each) they can tunnel the entire route simultaneously and because they design one station and build identical copies of that station at each location. However this would not save much money in the United States because we will not construct it simultaneously, we will not build identical stations from a single design, we’d make sure the architects and engineers and planners had jobs for years designing sixteen custom stations. And most importantly, it will not save money in the United States because the contractors expect to paid the prevailing cost of rail lines, if there is a method like single bore that is 700 times faster to construct and costs 40% of the prevailing cost the contractors in the United States will deliberately implement this new cheaper and faster method so that it will take almost the same amount time for almost the same amount of money. That is what they are doing in San Jose, where it is saving “just” 70 million mainly because the contractor wants to be paid a “normal” amount regardless of construction method chosen. Metro plans on spending at least ten billion on the sepulveda tunnel, every contractor knows it , and as a result, no contractor is going to bid on it with a method that costs two billion, even if it could be built for that. Metro doesn’t insist on any sort of cost control, primarily because metro is a jobs feeder, the people who estimate the costs for metro before the project is put out for bids will all eventually take jobs at the contractors , so all the public employees have no incentive to make projects the most cost effective and every incentive to make sure the projects are exceptionally cost ineffective. |
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jun 29, 2018 14:09:43 GMT -8
BOOM. You nailed it. The way Metro is doing things is the way a mediocre city would do it. A city that doesn’t know what they are doing. The only other major city that does rapid transit so wrong is Philadelphia (with the exception of their commuter rail if you call that rapid). If LA wants to have a transit system that a world class city like LA deserves then they need to totally change the way they are planning out and building this system. The whole light rail and heavy rail intertwined thing is perfectly fine, Boston does this. But if LA wants a system like Washington, Boston or even New York - they need to start making the investment. Now I know that might sound like a ridiculous statement considering LA county residents have taxed themselves not once but twice for transit. But again, as metrocenter stated it’s all about individual projects and plus a lot of that Measure money goes toward things like freeways and bike lanes and not enough to doing these projects right. You do them wrong and no one rides/uses them or you have to do it again a second time, either way that’s wasting money. I’m still hoping somewhere along the line something gets done here. Because if this is just a free standing light rail line with 14 stations and not grade separated then this will be a white elephant boondoggle that sours voters on mass transit and on taxing themselves for it. Either commit to making Sepulveda LRT subway and make ESFV totally grade separated (underground, aerial or at street level) and reduce stations to a number like 8 - OR - extend the Sepulveda HRT line to Van Nuys MetroLink and make ESFV a feeder streetcar or high end BRT southward from Sylmar to the Van Nuys MetroLink - OR - the best option, commit to ESFV being HRT which is of course unlikely It still shocks me no one on the board at Metro or no one in community meetings has stepped in and said wait a minute ... this thing isn’t going to be effective if it doesn’t become one with Sepulveda considering 90% of Sepulveda riders are going to be people living in the Valley ! .. How has no one of influence said anything ?!?!?!??! Because the HRT station palaces on the purple line cost $500,000,000 each to build and take eleven years each to build, and HRT stations can’t be built simultaneously because the funding mechanism of R and M is only making some money available annually, that means the best we can hope for is semi-sequential construction as with the current three phase one purple stations that are staggered about a year apart. For the eight stations of the ESFV you propose, it would cost four billion for stations and take about twenty years to build. Four another eight stations on the sepulveda corridor to expo would cost another four billion and also take twenty years to build And that is just the cost and timeline of our custom HRT station palaces, tunneling is somewhat cheaper, but you also have to build track, electrical infrastructure, relocate utilities, spend twenty years and billions jet grouting the route every two hundred meters for cross passages, two years of additional construction chopping up the tunnels every two hundred meters for cross passages etc etc etc hRT built like the purple line is extraordinarily expensive and time consuming, and there simply isn’t twenty five billion and twenty years of time to spend on one 45 km line from sylmar to lax. There are two other ways to build HRt, cut and cover, which all the business and people on the line route hate and vociferously oppose for nearly a hundred years now (which is why it has been barely used as a dominant construction method in the last hundred years) The other method is single bore wide diameter deep tunneling. This saves a lot of time and money in other countries mainly because they buy multiple TBMs (which cost about 15 million each) they can tunnel the entire route simultaneously and because they design one station and build identical copies of that station at each location. However this would not save much money in the United States because we will not construct it simultaneously, we will not build identical stations from a single design, we’d make sure the architects and engineers and planners had jobs for years designing sixteen custom stations. And most importantly, it will not save money in the United States because the contractors expect to paid the prevailing cost of rail lines, if there is a method like single bore that is 700 times faster to construct and costs 40% of the prevailing cost the contractors in the United States will deliberately implement this new cheaper and faster method so that it will take almost the same amount time for almost the same amount of money. That is what they are doing in San Jose, where it is saving “just” 70 million mainly because the contractor wants to be paid a “normal” amount regardless of construction method chosen. Metro plans on spending at least ten billion on the sepulveda tunnel, every contractor knows it , and as a result, no contractor is going to bid on it with a method that costs two billion, even if it could be built for that. Metro doesn’t insist on any sort of cost control, primarily because metro is a jobs feeder, the people who estimate the costs for metro before the project is put out for bids will all eventually take jobs at the contractors , so all the public employees have no incentive to make projects the most cost effective and every incentive to make sure the projects are exceptionally cost ineffective. Well why is this stated as if it’s accepted fav and it can’t be changed?! For one, stop building massive palaces for HRT stations. Just build serviceable, nice stations that do the job for the expected usage. That alone brings the cost down. Secondly, work with the local governments. There has to be a way. If they know this money is coming in then I’m sure they can borrow it from somewhere. You can’t tell me an organization with so many connections can’t get money fronted to them. I just hear so many excuses about why it can’t be done and not enough we will find a way. Metro could a little less Jimmy Carter malaise and a little more JFK put a man on the moon. Build it right or don’t build it at all. IMO the valley is better off getting it done correctly in 2035, then getting an obsolete half assed white elephant in 2028. I don’t accept it can’t be done right and done by the Olympics. It’s not as if there is only ONE option to fix this situation. The concept of extending the Sepulveda line up to Van Nuys ML. That takes some money away from the ESFV and adds on some cost to Sepulveda but not THAT much. Maybe a billion? 2.3 miles, that’s probably two more stations. And at that point you downgrade the ESFV from Sylmar to Van Nuys MetroLink to a streetcar and who knows you might even have financial room to put a streetcar on an EAST/WEST valley through-fare to compliment the N/S one. Then as funding becomes available you get a whole network of streetcars in the valley and you don’t ruin the idea of a main rail line for the Sepulveda/Van Nuys corridor. That’s just one scenario, point is you can do so many things with this. Hell, even making an express track on the Sepulveda line that is the opposite mode of the ESFV could even be an option. The only fact remains: LIGHT RAIL down to the orange and then heavy rail from that point south is the WRONG idea. Less bike lanes, less pothole fixes. More first class, world class mass transit. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 29, 2018 14:37:21 GMT -8
there's really nothing wrong with street running light rail and it is an excellent solution for the corridor, superior to bus and street car options. HRT is overkill for the corridor in terms of excess capacity it provides and the density of the corridor in question, which is well suited to light rail.
Your central problem is that it is a local transit solution and it is not a solution servicing exclusively the needs of super commuters who want to access the line at Sylmar and bypass 30 km of travel through LA into west LA. This sort of super commuter is only one kind of potential passenger, and in terms of transit use, such a passenger is actually a bit of a phantom passenger, relatively rare, probably not reliable in terms of transit planning.
how about how much it's worth.
People value their time at about $12 / hour. that means they value the time sunk into a 30 minute end to end trip on the ESFV at $6, or for a daily round trip $12. Let us say that 12% of the projected ridership of 45,000 a day are end to end riders, or 5000 riders, that's a value of $60,000 a day in time sunk into the 60 minute (round trip) riding the eSFV end to end. or $15,000,000 a year.
Let's say we do your proposal and make it HRT with 8 stations and now it only takes 15 minutes to traverse the same distance, you've saved people 30 minutes a day, which means you've saved people $7,500,000 a year by going HRT
LRT is going to cost 1 billion, your proposed HRT would cost at least 6 billion.
So to save end to end riders $7,500,000 a year in lost time, you propose spending $5,000,000,000
To break even on that additional $5,000,000,000 in expense will take 666 years and 8 months.
Not to mention the proposed HRT is less useful to residents of the area, causes feeder bus service to become poorer by generating over crowding on the 8 station connections while becoming inefficiently empty on the abandoned 6 station connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jun 29, 2018 19:28:32 GMT -8
The truth is, we need a *system* designed on many layers, including commuter rail, local rail, buses, bikes, pedestrians and ride share. But that's not what we have. What we have is a set of rail projects, each without enough funding to really do it right, each conceived separately and with only a vague concept of its purpose, with everybody wanting it to meet their every expectation. BOOM. You nailed it. The way Metro is doing things is the way a mediocre city would do it. A city that doesn’t know what they are doing. The only other major city that does rapid transit so wrong is Philadelphia (with the exception of their commuter rail if you call that rapid). If LA wants to have a transit system that a world class city like LA deserves then they need to totally change the way they are planning out and building this system. The whole light rail and heavy rail intertwined thing is perfectly fine, Boston does this. But if LA wants a system like Washington, Boston or even New York - they need to start making the investment. Now I know that might sound like a ridiculous statement considering LA county residents have taxed themselves not once but twice for transit. But again, as metrocenter stated it’s all about individual projects and plus a lot of that Measure money goes toward things like freeways and bike lanes and not enough to doing these projects right. You do them wrong and no one rides/uses them or you have to do it again a second time, either way that’s wasting money. I’m still hoping somewhere along the line something gets done here. Because if this is just a free standing light rail line with 14 stations and not grade separated then this will be a white elephant boondoggle that sours voters on mass transit and on taxing themselves for it. Either commit to making Sepulveda LRT subway and make ESFV totally grade separated (underground, aerial or at street level) and reduce stations to a number like 8 - OR - extend the Sepulveda HRT line to Van Nuys MetroLink and make ESFV a feeder streetcar or high end BRT southward from Sylmar to the Van Nuys MetroLink - OR - the best option, commit to ESFV being HRT which is of course unlikely
It still shocks me no one on the board at Metro or no one in community meetings has stepped in and said wait a minute ... this thing isn’t going to be effective if it doesn’t become one with Sepulveda considering 90% of Sepulveda riders are going to be people living in the Valley ! .. How has no one of influence said anything ?!?!?!??!What you wrote is wrong in many ways and CulvercityLocke states some of the reasons, but you really are out of the loop with that last paragraph because I was at the meetings and spoke up myself on this very issue. Other people also spoke up in favor of a one seat ride over the Sepulveda Pass and urged that the Van Nuys Line and the Sepulveda pass being integrated into phase 1, phase 2 etc (sort of like it is now). Again, I know because I was there. I think Metro heard the message loud and clear that the 2 lines need to merged. Originally Van Nuys Line was going to Ventura Blvd and then they decided that the Orange Line was the demarcation point between the 2 lines.
LA is spending billions on transit. What other city in the USA is even close? The Trump government, despite the rhetoric, is doing nothing or at best leaving things as they were so not much dinero for anyone especially the left coast. New York was boom town when they built there subway system, now our subway looks like a good deal compared to how much it costs over there. New York needs new train tunnel under the river before they unsafe. If you want to read about public infrastructure that is literally scary and doom like, read up on the problems New York has. LA isn't perfect, but our money goes further.
|
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jun 30, 2018 2:53:52 GMT -8
BOOM. You nailed it. The way Metro is doing things is the way a mediocre city would do it. A city that doesn’t know what they are doing. The only other major city that does rapid transit so wrong is Philadelphia (with the exception of their commuter rail if you call that rapid). If LA wants to have a transit system that a world class city like LA deserves then they need to totally change the way they are planning out and building this system. The whole light rail and heavy rail intertwined thing is perfectly fine, Boston does this. But if LA wants a system like Washington, Boston or even New York - they need to start making the investment. Now I know that might sound like a ridiculous statement considering LA county residents have taxed themselves not once but twice for transit. But again, as metrocenter stated it’s all about individual projects and plus a lot of that Measure money goes toward things like freeways and bike lanes and not enough to doing these projects right. You do them wrong and no one rides/uses them or you have to do it again a second time, either way that’s wasting money. I’m still hoping somewhere along the line something gets done here. Because if this is just a free standing light rail line with 14 stations and not grade separated then this will be a white elephant boondoggle that sours voters on mass transit and on taxing themselves for it. Either commit to making Sepulveda LRT subway and make ESFV totally grade separated (underground, aerial or at street level) and reduce stations to a number like 8 - OR - extend the Sepulveda HRT line to Van Nuys MetroLink and make ESFV a feeder streetcar or high end BRT southward from Sylmar to the Van Nuys MetroLink - OR - the best option, commit to ESFV being HRT which is of course unlikely
It still shocks me no one on the board at Metro or no one in community meetings has stepped in and said wait a minute ... this thing isn’t going to be effective if it doesn’t become one with Sepulveda considering 90% of Sepulveda riders are going to be people living in the Valley ! .. How has no one of influence said anything ?!?!?!??!What you wrote is wrong in many ways and CulvercityLocke states some of the reasons, but you really are out of the loop with that last paragraph because I was at the meetings and spoke up myself on this very issue. Other people also spoke up in favor of a one seat ride over the Sepulveda Pass and urged that the Van Nuys Line and the Sepulveda pass being integrated into phase 1, phase 2 etc (sort of like it is now). Again, I know because I was there. I think Metro heard the message loud and clear that the 2 lines need to merged. Originally Van Nuys Line was going to Ventura Blvd and then they decided that the Orange Line was the demarcation point between the 2 lines.
LA is spending billions on transit. What other city in the USA is even close? The Trump government, despite the rhetoric, is doing nothing or at best leaving things as they were so not much dinero for anyone especially the left coast. New York was boom town when they built there subway system, now our subway looks like a good deal compared to how much it costs over there. New York needs new train tunnel under the river before they unsafe. If you want to read about public infrastructure that is literally scary and doom like, read up on the problems New York has. LA isn't perfect, but our money goes further.
Curious what I’m so wrong about? And if so many people spoke up about that point what was Metro’s response? How did they justify this? It just seems SO short sighted. Just to get a line built, just to get in the news, just to have a ribbon cutting ... As I’ve said before, ESFV being light rail doesn’t doom the Sepulveda line if Sepulveda is Light Rail also... but if that happens I’d recommend the ESFV be grade separated. I just don’t see how it’s not obvious how faulty this whole set up is going to be. I know I’m a broken record at this point but the whole transfer/speed thing would be an issue anywhere but especially in LA where they’re trying to chance the attitudes and routines of a very car centric population |
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jun 30, 2018 3:45:18 GMT -8
BOOM. You nailed it. The way Metro is doing things is the way a mediocre city would do it. A city that doesn’t know what they are doing. The only other major city that does rapid transit so wrong is Philadelphia (with the exception of their commuter rail if you call that rapid). If LA wants to have a transit system that a world class city like LA deserves then they need to totally change the way they are planning out and building this system. The whole light rail and heavy rail intertwined thing is perfectly fine, Boston does this. But if LA wants a system like Washington, Boston or even New York - they need to start making the investment. Now I know that might sound like a ridiculous statement considering LA county residents have taxed themselves not once but twice for transit. But again, as metrocenter stated it’s all about individual projects and plus a lot of that Measure money goes toward things like freeways and bike lanes and not enough to doing these projects right. You do them wrong and no one rides/uses them or you have to do it again a second time, either way that’s wasting money. I’m still hoping somewhere along the line something gets done here. Because if this is just a free standing light rail line with 14 stations and not grade separated then this will be a white elephant boondoggle that sours voters on mass transit and on taxing themselves for it. Either commit to making Sepulveda LRT subway and make ESFV totally grade separated (underground, aerial or at street level) and reduce stations to a number like 8 - OR - extend the Sepulveda HRT line to Van Nuys MetroLink and make ESFV a feeder streetcar or high end BRT southward from Sylmar to the Van Nuys MetroLink - OR - the best option, commit to ESFV being HRT which is of course unlikely
It still shocks me no one on the board at Metro or no one in community meetings has stepped in and said wait a minute ... this thing isn’t going to be effective if it doesn’t become one with Sepulveda considering 90% of Sepulveda riders are going to be people living in the Valley ! .. How has no one of influence said anything ?!?!?!??!What you wrote is wrong in many ways and CulvercityLocke states some of the reasons, but you really are out of the loop with that last paragraph because I was at the meetings and spoke up myself on this very issue. Other people also spoke up in favor of a one seat ride over the Sepulveda Pass and urged that the Van Nuys Line and the Sepulveda pass being integrated into phase 1, phase 2 etc (sort of like it is now). Again, I know because I was there. I think Metro heard the message loud and clear that the 2 lines need to merged. Originally Van Nuys Line was going to Ventura Blvd and then they decided that the Orange Line was the demarcation point between the 2 lines.
LA is spending billions on transit. What other city in the USA is even close? The Trump government, despite the rhetoric, is doing nothing or at best leaving things as they were so not much dinero for anyone especially the left coast. New York was boom town when they built there subway system, now our subway looks like a good deal compared to how much it costs over there. New York needs new train tunnel under the river before they unsafe. If you want to read about public infrastructure that is literally scary and doom like, read up on the problems New York has. LA isn't perfect, but our money goes further.
Curious what I’m so wrong about? And if so many people spoke up about that point what was Metro’s response? How did they justify this? It just seems SO short sighted. Just to get a line built, just to get in the news, just to have a ribbon cutting ... As I’ve said before, ESFV being light rail doesn’t doom the Sepulveda line if Sepulveda is Light Rail also... but if that happens I’d recommend the ESFV be grade separated. I just don’t see how it’s not obvious how faulty this whole set up is going to be. I know I’m a broken record at this point but the whole transfer/speed thing would be an issue anywhere but especially in LA where they’re trying to chance the attitudes and routines of a very car centric population. And I’m not saying other cities don’t have issues that need addressing. Washington needs a maintence program overhaul as well as a couple of short extensions, Chicago needs a red extension, a MAJOR OVERHAUL of stations in the loop.... NYC needs to continue their station upgrading, need a new / higher capacity rail tunnel from midtown to NJ, an extension of the 2nd ave Subway and the Triboro line needs to be built .... many say Boston desperately needs a multi billion dollars commuter rail link to be built , they need to upgrade the green line from trolley like LRT to high end LRT, need to have rail going to the seaport district, need build the red-blue connector & to complete the northern blue line extension. Meanwhile you have Los Angeles who has voted to tax themselves twice and needed a 67% threshold to do it, that’s incredibly impressive. I’m just saying there needs to be a little more flexibility in how money can be spent. Aside from “bigly” needed roadway improvements & some safety fixes - the vast majority of the money should be going to the PIVOTAL projects that LA needs to have an elite system: Sylmar to Stadium rail, Vermont southern red line extension, Crenshaw North, Purple to Santa Monica, Rail to Whittier and finally putting the Blue/Expo underground on Flower St. Two other ones that get overlooked is Light Rail up Lincoln to connect LAX with Santa Monica Expo and Santa Monica Purple, and secondly I think converting orange to LRT and connecting it east to what will become the northern part of the blue line in Pasadena - would be a wildly successful line. That’s the part of the issue that can be handled without Governments help, simply rethinking how these funds can be used. The current setup seems irrational. Now of course we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the state of California made the investment in LA that LA deserves. In a 180B budget, I think $3B a year for ten years to create transportation on such a high scale life changing level is a no brainer. Then you have the federal government which is a joke. Trump claimed he was this great builder and with him around we would have the best airports, roads and yes trains - surprise surprise he was full of it. And of course he’s aided by a party that doesn’t just not fund this type of stuff but in some cases actively campaigns against it (see the light rail situation in Phoenix). It’s a joke. With the exception of some blue state moderates - republicans in the federal government are not going to provide the funding that would be a tremendous step in the right direction to making this system a high end, cohesive, efficient, world class mass transit network as opposed to a thrown together, mediocre assortment of lines. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jun 30, 2018 10:36:30 GMT -8
This isn't meant to be a valley to Westside express line or some huge transformational project immediately, it's a local service line. You can argue about whether thats the right call for the future or not, but thats what it is. Putting this line underground or using HRT or any of those sorts of things would mean billions and billions that Metro doesn't have. If you say "well, they should kill things like the Gold line expansion and use that money", the entire reason Measure M got passed was because it gave everyone a little something. This isn't SimCity, you can't lay the lines using only ridership information and engineering. The reason anything is getting built is because of politics and keeping people satisfied. You literally cannot ignore large communities with a local ballot measure and expect it to pass. That money is now allocated in the Measure M plan, and fudging between the projects, while possible, isn't a snap.
Metro has already telegraphed, like they always do, what the plan is here. The Sepulveda tunnel will likely be light rail (in this case, low floor LRV not compatible with the "medium rail" LRV lines. Think Siemens S70), serviced by multiple branching lines into the valley. The local lines will coalesce to provide short headway service through the tunnel to LAX. The comparator here is the Muni lines feeding into the Muni Metro.
Is it optimal? God no. Do I personally hope they trim some stations and rearrange the bus corridors? Yes! But there just isn't the money to make this a one shot mega-project.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jun 30, 2018 18:01:22 GMT -8
Metro has already telegraphed, like they always do, what the plan is here. The Sepulveda tunnel will likely be light rail (in this case, low floor LRV not compatible with the "medium rail" LRV lines. Think Siemens S70), serviced by multiple branching lines into the valley. The local lines will coalesce to provide short headway service through the tunnel to LAX. The comparator here is the Muni lines feeding into the Muni Metro. Where are you getting the information that it will be incompatible with the existing LRT lines? I haven't seen anything that would indicate that, and I don't think Metro is stupid enough to do it. Low-floor was one of the alternatives for ESFV, but it's not the one that was chosen. Being able to tie in with the existing Green Line tracks to Torrance or (more likely) Norwalk means you don't have to build separate track and platforms at LAX, and allows more one-seat rides. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 1, 2018 11:23:46 GMT -8
You are right, the alternative they chose is LRT which the EIR defines as "likely" to be high floor, but my personal feeling is that they will go low floor for a few reasons. The first portion is that baring a miracle, the Valley/Sepulveda lines will be disconnected from the rest of the LRT lines until the 2060s, unless they choose to make some form of track connection between Expo and Sepulveda which would be pretty dang expensive. So interoperability isn't a high priority. The discussion is then what sort of vehicle will work better for the plans for this future valley subdivision, being the ESFV, and the east and west branches of the Orange line. With the proposed stop spacing and number of stations, low floor stations will be comically cheaper to build and easily met projected demand. The second is where low floor vehicles are on the market now. When LA was making a lot of its LRT decisions, a reliable, fast, spacious, cheap to run low floor LRV just wasnt a... thing. Since then, vehicles like the Kinki Sharyos in Seattle and the stretched S70s have shown that the many of the old pitfalls of low floor LRVs have been addressed. The primary disadvantage at this point is that the whole car isn't ADA accessible as there are stairs over the end sections. But the trade off is much cheaper station construction, especially for median stations. The third is the LAX connection. The 96th street station is not designed to handle another line. Early engineering drawings showed Sepulveda not even using the 96th street station at all, but a separate, underground station at the West ITF. Who knows what the final decision will be on that, it probably wont be made for 40 more years, but either way you are building a new station. So in the end, and again this is me just trying to read the tea leaves and I could be totally wrong, is that the low floor LRT makes more sense. It's cheaper with limited trade offs. And this is an aside I am not presenting as evidence or anything, but here is the image attached to the Metro press release about the LRT selection. Low floors!   |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 1, 2018 13:42:38 GMT -8
And this is an aside I am not presenting as evidence or anything, but here is the image attached to the Metro press release about the LRT selection. Low floors! The railing at the first Metro sign from the left (M) is angled low to high. Whatever, I recall reading somewhere in Metro's recent documents that the vehicles would be the same as Metro's other LRT vehicles. At the meetings, Metro said that they could do the line with regular stock LRT trains. Plus, Metro has a contract for new vehicles which I'm sure both sides would love to expand on. |
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 1, 2018 14:16:10 GMT -8
You are right, the alternative they chose is LRT which the EIR defines as "likely" to be high floor, but my personal feeling is that they will go low floor for a few reasons. The first portion is that baring a miracle, the Valley/Sepulveda lines will be disconnected from the rest of the LRT lines until the 2060s, unless they choose to make some form of track connection between Expo and Sepulveda which would be pretty dang expensive. So interoperability isn't a high priority. The discussion is then what sort of vehicle will work better for the plans for this future valley subdivision, being the ESFV, and the east and west branches of the Orange line. With the proposed stop spacing and number of stations, low floor stations will be comically cheaper to build and easily met projected demand. The second is where low floor vehicles are on the market now. When LA was making a lot of its LRT decisions, a reliable, fast, spacious, cheap to run low floor LRV just wasnt a... thing. Since then, vehicles like the Kinki Sharyos in Seattle and the stretched S70s have shown that the many of the old pitfalls of low floor LRVs have been addressed. The primary disadvantage at this point is that the whole car isn't ADA accessible as there are stairs over the end sections. But the trade off is much cheaper station construction, especially for median stations. The third is the LAX connection. The 96th street station is not designed to handle another line. Early engineering drawings showed Sepulveda not even using the 96th street station at all, but a separate, underground station at the West ITF. Who knows what the final decision will be on that, it probably wont be made for 40 more years, but either way you are building a new station. So in the end, and again this is me just trying to read the tea leaves and I could be totally wrong, is that the low floor LRT makes more sense. It's cheaper with limited trade offs. And this is an aside I am not presenting as evidence or anything, but here is the image attached to the Metro press release about the LRT selection. Low floors! And this is an aside I am not presenting as evidence or anything, but here is the image attached to the Metro press release about the LRT selection. Low floors! The railing at the first Metro sign from the left (M) is angled low to high. Whatever, I recall reading somewhere in Metro's recent documents that the vehicles would be the same as Metro's other LRT vehicles. At the meetings, Metro said that they could do the line with regular stock LRT trains. Plus, Metro has a contract for new vehicles which I'm sure both sides would love to expand on. The plan is to use high floor lrv trains like on the other lines. That image shown has been used in multiple presentations to show what a low floor tram would look like. Metro and others reporting on the approval keep using the photo mainly because it shows what Van Nuys will look like. There are other photos out there that show the correct train and stations. Here is an image from one of the presentations showing the new trains used on Expo/Gold line:  Also here is am image that was released from metro in terms of orange line upgrades that shows the van nuys platform where it will connect to the orange line. It is shown as a high platform station:  |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jul 1, 2018 20:05:16 GMT -8
I haven't been following this much, but, has Metro considered tossing the stations on the lowest traffic cross boulevards and instead routing their bus lines N/S along Van Nuys Blvd to the nearest station?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 2, 2018 15:12:34 GMT -8
If ESFV ends up being one of the branch of the Sepulveda line, I think it will be fine. Just make sure ESFV stations are constructed with 4 car (or 6 car!) platform. As for rolling stock, I think Metro will stick with high platform just because they have institutional knowledge and experience running such a system. I just hope Metro switch to open gangway design like Shanghai Metro light rail so we can maximize the capacity thru the Sepulveda pass.    |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 3, 2018 1:53:30 GMT -8
In 2012, Metro actually did a comprehensive study with estimated boardings and timings for HRT and LRT between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX, with only 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard (Orange Line): media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/4.0%20Potential%20Ridership-Usage%20of%20Alternative%20Concepts.pdfThe light rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-11, page 31. The heavy rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-14, page 35. The concepts followed the same routes as the 14-station locally preferred alternative, but with fewer stations. The maps for the concepts are on page 64. The concepts considered a tunnel for the Sepulveda pass, but operating at-grade north of the pass. It was an estimated 27.5 minutes for the 5 stations between Sylmar and Oxnard. The 14-station locally preferred alternative has an estimated time of 31 minutes end-to-end. Adding 9 stations does not seem to make it too much slower, only 3.5 minutes slower. The heavy rail alternative was 20.4 minutes, though--so a savings of 10.6 minutes. In terms of boardings, if you treat the 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard as its own line, it has ~32,636 estimated daily boardings for the light-rail line (~39,024 estimated for the heavy rail alternative) compared to the estimated 47,400 boardings for the 14-station locally preferred alternative. The number likely would be less since the estimated boardings for a "5 station line" are not actually there, it is based on estimates for a Sylmar to LAX line, and include the network effects of a longer line and also include southbound boardings at Oxnard (there are no southbound boardings at Oxnard included in the estimates for the ESFV line, since it is the terminus station). All in all, it does not seem to be the case that having 9 more stations would reduce the number of boardings, but rather increase the number of boardings. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 3, 2018 8:46:17 GMT -8
In 2012, Metro actually did a comprehensive study with estimated boardings and timings for HRT and LRT between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX, with only 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard (Orange Line): media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/4.0%20Potential%20Ridership-Usage%20of%20Alternative%20Concepts.pdfThe light rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-11, page 31. The heavy rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-14, page 35. The concepts followed the same routes as the 14-station locally preferred alternative, but with fewer stations. The maps for the concepts are on page 64. The concepts considered a tunnel for the Sepulveda pass, but operating at-grade north of the pass. It was an estimated 27.5 minutes for the 5 stations between Sylmar and Oxnard. The 14-station locally preferred alternative has an estimated time of 29 minutes end-to-end. Adding 9 stations does not seem to make it too much slower, only 1.5 minutes slower. The heavy rail alternative was 20.4 minutes, though--so a savings of 8.6 minutes. In terms of boardings, if you treat the 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard as its own line, it has ~32,636 estimated daily boardings for the light-rail line (~39,024 estimated for the heavy rail alternative) compared to the estimated 47,400 boardings for the 14-station locally preferred alternative. The number likely would be less since the estimated boardings for a "5 station line" are not actually there, it is based on estimates for a Sylmar to LAX line, and include the network effects of a longer line and also include southbound boardings at Oxnard (there are no southbound boardings at Oxnard included in the estimates for the ESFV line, since it is the terminus station). All in all, it does not seem to be the case that having 9 more stations would reduce the number of boardings, but rather increase the number of boardings. Current estimate is the line would be 31 minutes. 29 minutes assumed a long tunneled section. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 3, 2018 10:09:12 GMT -8
In 2012, Metro actually did a comprehensive study with estimated boardings and timings for HRT and LRT between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX, with only 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard (Orange Line): media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/4.0%20Potential%20Ridership-Usage%20of%20Alternative%20Concepts.pdfThe light rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-11, page 31. The heavy rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-14, page 35. The concepts followed the same routes as the 14-station locally preferred alternative, but with fewer stations. The maps for the concepts are on page 64. The concepts considered a tunnel for the Sepulveda pass, but operating at-grade north of the pass. It was an estimated 27.5 minutes for the 5 stations between Sylmar and Oxnard. The 14-station locally preferred alternative has an estimated time of 29 minutes end-to-end. Adding 9 stations does not seem to make it too much slower, only 1.5 minutes slower. The heavy rail alternative was 20.4 minutes, though--so a savings of 8.6 minutes. In terms of boardings, if you treat the 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard as its own line, it has ~32,636 estimated daily boardings for the light-rail line (~39,024 estimated for the heavy rail alternative) compared to the estimated 47,400 boardings for the 14-station locally preferred alternative. The number likely would be less since the estimated boardings for a "5 station line" are not actually there, it is based on estimates for a Sylmar to LAX line, and include the network effects of a longer line and also include southbound boardings at Oxnard (there are no southbound boardings at Oxnard included in the estimates for the ESFV line, since it is the terminus station). All in all, it does not seem to be the case that having 9 more stations would reduce the number of boardings, but rather increase the number of boardings. Current estimate is the line would be 31 minutes. 29 minutes assumed a long tunneled section. Thanks, I added 2 minutes to the timings. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 3, 2018 12:13:54 GMT -8
If ESFV ends up being one of the branch of the Sepulveda line, I think it will be fine. Just make sure ESFV stations are constructed with 4 car (or 6 car!) platform. As for rolling stock, I think Metro will stick with high platform just because they have institutional knowledge and experience running such a system. I just hope Metro switch to open gangway design like Shanghai Metro light rail so we can maximize the capacity thru the Sepulveda pass. Changing to open gangways would be a huge change across the entire LRV fleet, probably not happening til they replace the current brand new rolling stock in a couple decades. As for four car platforms, iirc, 3 car platforms are about 270 feet and 4 car platforms are 360 feet, just measuring at victory, there’s only about 330 feet on either side of victory, so without an aerial platform you’d have to close one of the streets north or south to fit a four car platform. A lot of the other intersections seem to have room for four cars though, but I didn’t check them all. Four car platforms seems like overbuilding but it would certainly help with crush loading at rush hour or special events. So I see the attraction. Has anyone asked how they expect that 47000 ridership to be distributed throughout the day in the event of the sepulveda tunnels. If ridership is heavily weighted to commuter patterns four car platforms might be a worthy investment. Being crush loaded this weekend for the rally downtown on two car gold line trains was moderately unpleasant. It’d have been much better if they were running three car trains. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 3, 2018 14:20:06 GMT -8
We won't really know until the Sepulveda Pass DEIR are available for viewing.
But based on 405 traffic pattern, the Sepulveda Pass line will have decent ridership throughout the day but definitely with morning southbound crush load and evening north bound crush load.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 3, 2018 14:28:16 GMT -8
The Source (Metro Blog) iirc (maybe I saw it at the Daily News?) stated that a Metro board member wanted Metro to look at longer stations on this line while mentioning the problems that the Blue line has had and avoiding those here.
I haven't really looked at Van Nuys blvd to see if this in particular would work, but the major streets are located a good distance from each other and the smaller streets should be required to turn right only thus blocking thru access and presenting problematic left turns.
I even suggested this to Metro while they were seeking comments.
I think this line will prove to be very popular and the Expo and Orange lines have exceeded expectations. Combined with the Sepulveda Pass line.......
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 4, 2018 22:07:04 GMT -8
You are right, the alternative they chose is LRT which the EIR defines as "likely" to be high floor, but my personal feeling is that they will go low floor for a few reasons. The first portion is that baring a miracle, the Valley/Sepulveda lines will be disconnected from the rest of the LRT lines until the 2060s, unless they choose to make some form of track connection between Expo and Sepulveda which would be pretty dang expensive. So interoperability isn't a high priority. The discussion is then what sort of vehicle will work better for the plans for this future valley subdivision, being the ESFV, and the east and west branches of the Orange line. With the proposed stop spacing and number of stations, low floor stations will be comically cheaper to build and easily met projected demand. The second is where low floor vehicles are on the market now. When LA was making a lot of its LRT decisions, a reliable, fast, spacious, cheap to run low floor LRV just wasnt a... thing. Since then, vehicles like the Kinki Sharyos in Seattle and the stretched S70s have shown that the many of the old pitfalls of low floor LRVs have been addressed. The primary disadvantage at this point is that the whole car isn't ADA accessible as there are stairs over the end sections. But the trade off is much cheaper station construction, especially for median stations. The third is the LAX connection. The 96th street station is not designed to handle another line. Early engineering drawings showed Sepulveda not even using the 96th street station at all, but a separate, underground station at the West ITF. Who knows what the final decision will be on that, it probably wont be made for 40 more years, but either way you are building a new station. So in the end, and again this is me just trying to read the tea leaves and I could be totally wrong, is that the low floor LRT makes more sense. It's cheaper with limited trade offs. And this is an aside I am not presenting as evidence or anything, but here is the image attached to the Metro press release about the LRT selection. Low floors! Comment from Steve Hymon of Metro: thesource.metro.net/2018/06/28/light-rail-approved-by-metro-board-for-van-nuys-to-sylmar-san-fernando-metrolink-station-transit-line/#comment-47599The description of the locally preferred alternative to the Metro board: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3532671&GUID=8A3BB2B0-0C2A-4621-A494-456D18DCB6FB&Options=ID%7CText%7C&FullText=1 |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 10, 2018 17:59:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 16, 2018 9:25:27 GMT -8
|
|
