Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 16, 2018 10:59:24 GMT -8
boardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/2018/180212_Office_Of_Extraordinary_Innovation_(OEI)_Quarterly_Progress_Report.pdf
www.dropbox.com/s/7tup5bcmfcr81ym/180705_OEI_Quarterly_Progress_Report-1.pdf?dl=0
Based on Metro CEO Phil Washington’s comments on October 26 at the Eco-Rapid Summit, his comments seem to suggest they have decided to pursue a P3. I think it could make interlining with the Sepulveda Line more likely.
www.eco-rapid.org/Records/Agendas_Reports/2018/11_14_18/11_14_18.pdf?v=1
If they go with a P3 for the full 45km line, I expect that means they’re going to have totally different rolling stock from metro’s HRT and LRT, probably mostly an interior change with seating on the sides and an open gangway to increase the capacity of three car LRT trainsets. Perhaps looking at a different car design with Tesla style electric drivetrains in the chassis particularly to improve power on steep grades and possibly reduce vehicle weight. Still would be powered by OCS, of course, but you could run trains with model 3 motors.
P3 probably means elevated over the 405 most of the route with a four to five km tunnel to UCLA. Not so much a cost savings because it’s a much longer route and will have extremely high construction risks on delays and cost escalations, but because a P3 won’t want to deal with ventilation requirements for a 9km direct tunnel.
One thing to consider is how the boring company could figure in, with their low profile vehicle skate design, you could imagine a large diameter tunnel with trains in the upper two thirds and a rich person bypass on the lowest level using the boring company skates to transport rich people vehicles at 150mph for high fees. No gasoline emissions in the tunnel means no increased NePA ventilation requirements.
