|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 30, 2017 15:38:39 GMT -8
Measure M would only provide the "local" funding. Any rail project that is largely underground in LA will basically need Federal assistance. Maybe we can get some of the left over Mexican wall money...  |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 2, 2017 10:34:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 2, 2017 13:43:54 GMT -8
I heard on NPR last night this came out but forgot to go look it up |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2017 0:26:55 GMT -8
it's a quite interesting proposal. the TSM (increased bus headways) is almost the best option. funny that. probably nothign more than restoring service to the levels it was at when metro was forced by the BRU lawsuit to provide decent service.
It's pretty clear that LRT is the best option of the four, but at 2.3 billion for a 15 km line with only 1.3 available from R + M combined, it may be impossible to get another billion out of the trump administration. LRT may not happen.
Why is it the best option. TIME and SPEED, it increases operational speed from 10mph for bus or low floor to 20 mph, that means that it is the only service that reduces travel time below thirty minutes. also CAPACITY, it carries four hundred, rather than 100.
instead, the Low floor rail, with a budget of 1.3 billion (how convenient) and a mind numbingly terrible 28 stations, will probably win out. Note that metro is claiming the train can make 28 stops, and traverse the 15 km in mixed traffic in 42 minutes (compared to 49 minutes for bus). Does not compute. It may not be possible to make this trip in 49 minutes with 28 stations and many more starts and stops due to traffic lights.
The Light rail plan, 15 km long, has a 4 km stretch of subway, with three stations bounded by sherman and roscoe. the rest of the line is at grade (there's a fair amount of property acquisition for the at-grade the transition to san fernando)
both LFT and LRT are looking at the same maintanence facility locations:
Regarding the san fernando ROW:
in terms of gated crossings:
Here is one very interesting thing from page 22:
which is why the project scope did not go south to van nuys blvd.
van nuys blvd would lose it's bike lanes for all four alternatives
Metro implausibly projects that the Low Floor will gain 8400 daily trips, compared to a gain of 8600 daily trips on the LRT and a gain of 2900 daily trips on the median bus lanes.
That makes no sense, the LFT is going to be as slow, or slower than a bus, with more stops than a rapid (so probably slower than the rapid). In other words, it will be virtually indistinguishable from a median bus lane project. Yet despite having zero advantages for the rider over a bus, metro thinks it is going to have 2.9x riders of the bus project? Does not compute
regarding connecting to the sepulveda pass corridor:
and what will happen to cars on van nuys, sepulveda and woodman (in other words, why LRT might be doomed?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2017 1:23:00 GMT -8
creating the maintanence facility is going to be a massive headache for this project, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Sept 3, 2017 8:52:30 GMT -8
CCL says: "Metro implausibly projects that the Low Floor will gain 8400 daily trips, compared to a gain of 8600 daily trips on the LRT and a gain of 2900 daily trips on the median bus lanes.
That makes no sense, the LFT is going to be as slow, or slower than a bus, with more stops than a rapid (so probably slower than the rapid). In other words, it will be virtually indistinguishable from a median bus lane project. Yet despite having zero advantages for the rider over a bus, metro thinks it is going to have 2.9x riders of the bus project? Does not compute"
You're correct, the ridership forecasts don't compute. The Executive Summary of the Environmental document either misrepresents on misunderstands the ridership forecasts for the alternatives. The error is that all of the alternatives except the Low Floor LRT/Tram (AKA Streetcar) include both a premium service and an overlaid local bus service (Route 233). The local service is required to serve the intermediate stations that aren't served by the premium service. The Streetcar doesn't need the local service because there are so many stations.
In the document (Page ES-33) the ridership growth is based on a comparison of the forecast ridership for the premium service as compared to the No Build ridership on the Rapid bus route. The document fails to acknowledge that most of the Streetcar ridership will be diverted from Route 233. The actual ridership growth for the Streetcar alternative should be approximately 4,000 daily new riders.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 3, 2017 10:25:07 GMT -8
creating the maintanence facility is going to be a massive headache for this project, I think. The Sepulveda Pass Project will have to put a Maintenance Facility in the Valley. No way that is built in West LA. Might as well have the fight now, if there is going to be a fight over location. Besides a Maintenance Facility in the Valley could support both Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass at the same time. It goes without saying I think, that Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass should be a single seat project. Top 4 reasons for LRT: 1. One seat ride with the Sepulveda pass project into West LA. 2. There are 2 Metrolink Stations that can provide ridership from Ventura County and Northern LA County cities like Palmdale. Why waste an opportunity to provide an easy transfer and give those people another opportunity to give up their cars and get into West LA. 3. The LRT is estimated to be under 30 minutes end to end, much faster than any other options which rely on traffic signals and buses or a Tram stuck in traffic. 4. Ridership is expected to be in excess of 60,000 and far exceed any other mode. I assume that the high cost for LRT is for grade seperations of intersections and the short subway section where Van Nuys becomes very narrow. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2017 10:52:14 GMT -8
creating the maintanence facility is going to be a massive headache for this project, I think. The Sepulveda Pass Project will have to put a Maintenance Facility in the Valley. No way that is built in West LA. Might as well have the fight now, if there is going to be a fight over location. Besides a Maintenance Facility in the Valley could support both Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass at the same time. It goes without saying I think, that Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass should be a single seat project. Top 4 reasons for LRT: 1. One seat ride with the Sepulveda pass project into West LA. 2. There are 2 Metrolink Stations that can provide ridership from Ventura County and Northern LA County cities like Palmdale. Why waste an opportunity to provide an easy transfer and give those people another opportunity to give up their cars and get into West LA. 3. The LRT is estimated to be under 30 minutes end to end, much faster than any other options which rely on traffic signals and buses or a Tram stuck in traffic. 4. Ridership is expected to be in excess of 60,000 and far exceed any other mode. I assume that the high cost for LRT is for grade seperations of intersections and the short subway section where Van Nuys becomes very narrow. The sepulveda pass is the biggest bottleneck in the United States, a "one seat ride" is an immaterial goal, a single track LRT (each direction) does not have enough capacity to meet demand for the corridor. If the sepulveda pass goes LRT it has to be four tracked, which would provide the needed capacity and allow for future branching. Since they will opt for one track, Sepulveda pass will have to be HRT from orange line to aviation/96th. On the other hand, since metro will want to screw over voters with a PPP, and impose special pricing through the pass, perhaps those developments would suppress demand for the route down to LRT levels and keep more cars on the road. Ironically, an HRT with special poor punishing pricing would be easier to enforce, a "one seat ride" LRT, kind of makes it harder to implement into LAs system |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Sept 3, 2017 11:03:26 GMT -8
The LRT adds 8,000 trips over TSM for $2.67 billion. Thats awful. Expo Phase 2, for comparison, was projected to add 26,000 over TSM for $1.5 billion more. Add in the fact that Metro is, as per usual, tipping their hand by not budgeting an LRT sized budget, and it seems the writing is on the wall here.
Honestly, I think any dream of a one seat ride from Sylmar to LAX is already out the window. If thats the case, the TPM and BRT options are honestly the more attractive options here. Not sure if that will work politically, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 3, 2017 11:43:52 GMT -8
The Sepulveda Pass Project will have to put a Maintenance Facility in the Valley. No way that is built in West LA. Might as well have the fight now, if there is going to be a fight over location. Besides a Maintenance Facility in the Valley could support both Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass at the same time. It goes without saying I think, that Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass should be a single seat project. Top 4 reasons for LRT: 1. One seat ride with the Sepulveda pass project into West LA. 2. There are 2 Metrolink Stations that can provide ridership from Ventura County and Northern LA County cities like Palmdale. Why waste an opportunity to provide an easy transfer and give those people another opportunity to give up their cars and get into West LA. 3. The LRT is estimated to be under 30 minutes end to end, much faster than any other options which rely on traffic signals and buses or a Tram stuck in traffic. 4. Ridership is expected to be in excess of 60,000 and far exceed any other mode. I assume that the high cost for LRT is for grade seperations of intersections and the short subway section where Van Nuys becomes very narrow. The sepulveda pass is the biggest bottleneck in the United States, a "one seat ride" is an immaterial goal, a single track LRT (each direction) does not have enough capacity to meet demand for the corridor. If the sepulveda pass goes LRT it has to be four tracked, which would provide the needed capacity and allow for future branching. Since they will opt for one track, Sepulveda pass will have to be HRT from orange line to aviation/96th. On the other hand, since metro will want to screw over voters with a PPP, and impose special pricing through the pass, perhaps those developments would suppress demand for the route down to LRT levels and keep more cars on the road. Ironically, an HRT with special poor punishing pricing would be easier to enforce, a "one seat ride" LRT, kind of makes it harder to implement into LAs system That statement is ridiculous and insulting. I have been to the meetings and that refrain was heard time and again. So of course we who said it must be ignorant and/or worse for you to be so casually dismissive. But I won't debate it since neither of us will presumably change our opinion. The Sepulveda Pass project is only envisaging HRT if it is a PPP. If no PPP it will be LRT and I haven't seen any mention of 4 track LRT in the preliminary reports so I'm not sure how you arrived at that (rhetorical question). But who knows there have only been very preliminary reports so far. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 3, 2017 11:59:35 GMT -8
The LRT adds 8,000 trips over TSM for $2.67 billion. Thats awful. Expo Phase 2, for comparison, was projected to add 26,000 over TSM for $1.5 billion more. Add in the fact that Metro is, as per usual, tipping their hand by not budgeting an LRT sized budget, and it seems the writing is on the wall here. Honestly, I think any dream of a one seat ride from Sylmar to LAX is already out the window. If thats the case, the TPM and BRT options are honestly the more attractive options here. Not sure if that will work politically, though. Not sure how that adds up. Per the report link page 9 TSM Average Weekday Boardings 38,128 LRT Average 69,221 -------------------------------------------- Difference 31,093 additional riders for LRT over TSM And I have to add, that a one ride trip to West LA is going to just add, not subtract from those numbers. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Sept 3, 2017 12:08:46 GMT -8
My bad, I didn't see that page. The ES lists it like this on page ES-33:
I'm going to guess that your citation is a better one than this one, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 3, 2017 12:11:03 GMT -8
The LRT adds 8,000 trips over TSM for $2.67 billion. Thats awful. Expo Phase 2, for comparison, was projected to add 26,000 over TSM for $1.5 billion more. Add in the fact that Metro is, as per usual, tipping their hand by not budgeting an LRT sized budget, and it seems the writing is on the wall here. Honestly, I think any dream of a one seat ride from Sylmar to LAX is already out the window. If thats the case, the TPM and BRT options are honestly the more attractive options here. Not sure if that will work politically, though. One last point, if we spent billions to build the Expo Line and transport their ridership of 60,000, why do we need to debate the Van Nuys Line. It seems to me that almost 70,000 average daily riders is great ridership numbers and Metro MUST be CONSERVATIVE in their numbers what will it actualy be. Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2017 12:19:23 GMT -8
The sepulveda pass is the biggest bottleneck in the United States, a "one seat ride" is an immaterial goal, a single track LRT (each direction) does not have enough capacity to meet demand for the corridor. If the sepulveda pass goes LRT it has to be four tracked, which would provide the needed capacity and allow for future branching. Since they will opt for one track, Sepulveda pass will have to be HRT from orange line to aviation/96th. On the other hand, since metro will want to screw over voters with a PPP, and impose special pricing through the pass, perhaps those developments would suppress demand for the route down to LRT levels and keep more cars on the road. Ironically, an HRT with special poor punishing pricing would be easier to enforce, a "one seat ride" LRT, kind of makes it harder to implement into LAs system That statement is ridiculous and insulting. I have been to the meetings and that refrain was heard time and again. So of course we who said it must be ignorant and/or worse for you to be so casually dismissive. But I won't debate it since neither of us will presumably change our opinion. The Sepulveda Pass project is only envisaging HRT if it is a PPP. If no PPP it will be LRT and I haven't seen any mention of 4 track LRT in the preliminary reports so I'm not sure how you arrived at that (rhetorical question). But who knows there have only been very preliminary reports so far. A one seat ride for all 45 km from aviation to sylmar would be amazing, but building LRT through the pass is going to under build from the beginnin, it simply does not provide sufficient capacity. Remember, there will be a 5 degree grade (or more) going through the pass which will significantly reduce operational capacity since going downhill increases braking distance and safe spacing limits between trains and going up hill takes longer. So no every four minute trains. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2017 13:22:30 GMT -8
The capacity works like this. 400 ppl per three car train, trains every 6 minutes, so ten per hour. That means 4000 people per hour on LRT.
For a three hour rush hour period, that is only a maximum capacity of 12000 commuters per direction.
That's good, but that is not sufficient to meet the demand for the corridor.
A lane of freeway carries 2700 cars per hour, and each car averages out to 1.2 people per vehicle. the 405 has six lanes each direction, so the 405 works out to 19500 people per hour (5x he capacity of LRT), 58,000 per three hour rush hour period (per direction).
And the fact that the 405 has filled up with every expansion means there is even more latent demand for this corridor that is not being served. This demand will spill over into new transit opportunities, so sepulveda pass rail ridership is going to come from three sources, people abandoning the freeway, from latent demand (people not making the trip at all) and from bus ridership displacement.
If you figure there's 1000 people per hour on the buses through the pass, and a big chunk of them will opt for the railway, you're probably taking 800 people per hour on the LRT displaced from bus onto the rail.
I used to work in the building where the 405 expansion offices were housed, one of their engineers told me that their studies said that in order to meet current demand (much less future demand) for the corridor, they would need eleven lanes in each direction (thats how huge of a bottleneck the pass is, there are almost as many people not making the trip because of congestion as there are people making the trip !) which is obviously impossible, given that, it seems a conservative projection would be 1000 riders per hour from latent (currently unmet) demand.
So 1800 riders per hour out of 4000 per hour, that leaves only 2200 capacity available for people per hour who abandon the freeway., that's only 6600 people per rush hour period, out of 58000.
The orange line to Wilshire blvd is 15 km, but only four stops, that means fifteen to twenty minutes for a trip that currently takes 45-60 minutes by car. With 3x time savings, there is going to be tremendous demand from people that want to take the train instead of the freeway because the train is out competing the freeway. 6600 people per rush hour is way less than the demand for such a savings.
That is insufficient capacity. Bottom line LRT simply does not pencil out, math wise in terms of people moved.
HRT is more than double the capacity, and will make the same 15 km trip in ten to fifteen minutes, so an even better at out competing the freeway. There's a risk that even at 18000 people per rush hour, it won't meet the demand, but we're probably much closer to matching demand by building to a higher capacity than building to an obviously insufficient capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 3, 2017 19:16:17 GMT -8
IF, and a big if, the Sepulveda Pass project is blessed with HRT, great and awesome. But HRT is very expensive, and this is the kicker, it's even very expensive compared to LRT. That is why the chances are not that great for HRT. I have seen other threads on this board that have kicked the HRT bucket, so to speak, and the costs are magnitudes greater; of course capacity is that much greater.........
I would suggest that they will have to use 4 or 5 minute headways if LRT is chosen for the Sepulveda Pass Project, but as you say it might not be enough.
This just popped into my head...... why use only 3 car train sets for LRT in the pass, perhaps more cars and 4 minute headways will be more cost effective with longer stations, the Pass and West LA is likely going to be completely Subway anyway. Metro will have to sort it out in their reports and public comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 3, 2017 19:35:56 GMT -8
"a "one seat ride" is an immaterial goal," That statement is ridiculous and insulting. I have been to the meetings and that refrain was heard time and again. So of course we who said it must be ignorant and/or worse for you to be so casually dismissive. But I won't debate it since neither of us will presumably change our opinion. The Sepulveda Pass project is only envisaging HRT if it is a PPP. If no PPP it will be LRT and I haven't seen any mention of 4 track LRT in the preliminary reports so I'm not sure how you arrived at that (rhetorical question). But who knows there have only been very preliminary reports so far. A one seat ride for all 45 km from aviation to sylmar would be amazing, but building LRT through the pass is going to under build from the beginnin, it simply does not provide sufficient capacity. Remember, there will be a 5 degree grade (or more) going through the pass which will significantly reduce operational capacity since going downhill increases braking distance and safe spacing limits between trains and going up hill takes longer. So no every four minute trains. I'm not sure I agree with this analysis. The Train will be underground and will not be following the freeway and I recall seeing that the elevation between Sherman Oaks (the assumed point of departure at the time a few years ago) and Westwood was only a few hundred feet difference in elevation. The "Monorail" and the above the 405 Train concepts just seem impossible considering the grade of the hill. A Metro report a few years ago should have killed these ideas since it pointed out that you would need switchbacks and tall bridges to make any of theses concepts feasible and it would be an engineering hardship especially in Earthquake country, impact travel times of trains, cost, etc. Yikes. Edit: Googled Sherman Oaks elevation 663 ft Westwood LA elevation 338 ft |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 3, 2017 22:05:19 GMT -8
Good point, a 100 meter elevation gain over approx 9-10 km Westwood to van nuys is about a 1% grade. Thanks for catching my confusion, that will still increase braking distance but 5 or 4 minute headways should be reasonable.
One thing the sepulveda pass project will consider is that orange line to aviation is of necessity entirely subterranean, at no point is it ever at nor above grade.
The van nuys line is almost all at grade, and full grade separation is never considered.
So the best alternative for an entirely subterranean line, HRT, is never considered for a line that can get by almost entirely at grade.
But given they are separate projects, there will be relatively little cost difference between HRT and LRT since both are entirely subterranean, so it make sense for the pass project to push for HRT, as LRT will just be buying a whole lot less transit, but for the same enormous amount of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Sept 3, 2017 22:59:39 GMT -8
The Train will be underground... If the Sepulveda LRT envisioned is underground, then the bulk of the difference in cost between HRT and LRT ought to be the different sized stations and possibly maintenance facilities. As I'm sure people have been discussing, the Spanish big-bore tubes would even costs out. Keep the stations in the tube for most of the stations except for Westwood (busiest one) and maybe Ventura Blvd or SM Blvd; HRT cost shouldn't be magnitudes greater than LRT, then. I like the idea of sending it north to the Metrolink line. And if it was constructed as HRT, I'd think the current ridership estimates are way too low; there's unrealized demand, as you guys are saying -- and there would be transfer points to almost every east-west bus and rail line that Metro has. And LAX, too. Put a $2.50 surcharge on the ticket price if you take the trip over the Sepulveda Pass during rush hour ... give it to whoever wants in on the PPP, and loans Metro some construction money. Let's lowball an estimate at 30,000 rush-hour rides/weekday * 261 weekdays/year * $2.50 = about $20 million/year, or a payback of $600 million over 30 years. Sounds like a PPP could work and make a lot of people happy, as long as Metro makes sure the surcharge doesn't get too expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Sept 4, 2017 9:41:45 GMT -8
So much interesting information (and misinformation) worthy of comment! First, I finally got a look at Chapter 6 of the report, which explains that the ridership forecasts are for 2040, and also explains that the ridership growth in the ES only includes "new trips" diverted from other non-transit modes. Table 6-4 shows both new trips and total ridership. Once again, it is very strange that the new trips are virtually identical for Tram and LRT, but the total ridership is 25% higher for the LRT.
It also appears that the tables on the Page 6-15 show different ridership forecasts (35,800 for Tram and 47,440 for LRT, probably for the Opening Year analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 4, 2017 10:13:54 GMT -8
Very nice I only got through chapter four
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 4, 2017 11:14:46 GMT -8
So much interesting information (and misinformation) worthy of comment! First, I finally got a look at Chapter 6 of the report, which explains that the ridership forecasts are for 2040, and also explains that the ridership growth in the ES only includes "new trips" diverted from other non-transit modes. Table 6-4 shows both new trips and total ridership. Once again, it is very strange that the new trips are virtually identical for Tram and LRT, but the total ridership is 25% higher for the LRT. It also appears that the tables on the Page 6-15 show different ridership forecasts (35,800 for Tram and 47,440 for LRT, probably for the Opening Year analysis. Keep in mind that Metro, of necessity, low balls ridership figures; Metro must use conservative (low c) numbers in deriving their estimates. An example of these low ball estimates pertains to your very name; the Expo Line is already well exceeding ridership forecasts and has cannibalized bus ridership from other routes  . No big deal. Even if the report is using year 2040 in some of it's forecasts, that is only 15 years or less after this line is built. Not much time at all........... |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 4, 2017 11:55:40 GMT -8
Lets take a moment to appreciate how not very expensive the proposed van nuys LRT is, FOURTEEN stations, three underground, 15 km of track and a maintenance facility. All for 2.4 billion, that is 160 million per kilometer (still very high globally, but quite good for the United States, iirc.
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Sept 4, 2017 20:55:43 GMT -8
NVG: Please justify your assertion that "Metro, of necessity, low balls ridership figures; Metro must use conservative (low c) numbers in deriving their estimates".
If anything, Metro would like to use higher ridership forecasts to attract more funding from both local and federal sources. Just because Expo exceeded ridership forecasts doesn't mean that Metro did anything to "low ball" the forecasts.
Metro's transit ridership forecasting model is calibrated to match existing ridership counts on existing transit routes, so the Expo forecasts were estimated using a model that was calibrated to match LRT ridership on the Blue, Green and Gold Lines. It's very difficult to estimate how many "choice riders" will switch from auto to transit. Apparently, commuters along the Gold Line are more reluctant to ride the train than commuters along the Expo Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 5, 2017 13:03:52 GMT -8
NVG: Please justify your assertion that "Metro, of necessity, low balls ridership figures; Metro must use conservative (low c) numbers in deriving their estimates". If anything, Metro would like to use higher ridership forecasts to attract more funding from both local and federal sources. Just because Expo exceeded ridership forecasts doesn't mean that Metro did anything to "low ball" the forecasts. Metro's transit ridership forecasting model is calibrated to match existing ridership counts on existing transit routes, so the Expo forecasts were estimated using a model that was calibrated to match LRT ridership on the Blue, Green and Gold Lines. It's very difficult to estimate how many "choice riders" will switch from auto to transit. Apparently, commuters along the Gold Line are more reluctant to ride the train than commuters along the Expo Line. I am not sure why my statement can't be taken as a logical conclusion and you don't believe it, because if Metro was able to use any numbers it wanted, particularly or especially large numbers, it would/could lead to severe arguments and lawsuits over the veracity of the numbers, but let me explain. I have studied public administration and worked on transit issues at a local city and t he reason for the conservative (again low c) numbers is precisely because of what you wrote and I quote "If anything, Metro would like to use higher ridership forecasts...". OF COURSE Metro (or really any government entity that has to justify spending money) would LOVE to say exactly what your wrote to defend all of it's transit projects and ASSERT that whatever they are saying is true. EXAMPLE " If we spend XXXXXX Dollars on this contruction project and it will move XXX,000,000 people or we can spend XX and serve 1,000 people" Whatever. The point is that either Metro, politicians, Nimby's, your neighbors and practically anybody can try to fudge the numbers to make sure their favorite project looks not just good but GREAT!!! Or the numbers could be used to make the reverse argument and make a project look bad. Thus they use conservative numbers, verified through studies of said transit project and use the lowest, fewest, least numbers. So when dealing with numbers they have to be conservative and use the lowest figures that are reasonable and can be backed up by studies and math. The alternatives are liberal (small L) numbers that can be wildly exaggerated or manipulated or maybe just a dream..... Again, this isn't a political movement but a measure of numbers and using the numbers on the lower side of the scale which can be defended and not be used against Metro or whomever in lawsuits.  If you think about it, it makes perfect sense and this philosophy impacts lots of government projects. Not always successfully but that is a topic for another tangent. |
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on Sept 16, 2017 13:04:06 GMT -8
I think the inconvenience of having the Sepulveda Pass and Van Nuys lines as separate modes is overstated here. When you think about it, only a percentage of all the people coming to the Pass from throughout the valley come from the Van Nuys corridor to the north, but from all throughout the valley- from the east and west on the Orange line as well- and likewise travelers from the westside spread distribute to the north, west and east. So in practice most of the people are transferring at Orange Line/Van Nuys anyways.
From a travel pattern perspective, the Orange Line-Van Nuys line-Sepulveda Pass line agglomeration isn't a grid scenario, which would justify having each axis run through as a single line, but a trunk-feeder scenario. In effect, the lines from the north, east and west converge to feed the much-higher demand trunk. It would be foolish to run the Van Nuys and Sepulveda lines as a unified service when they serve completely different purposes. The imbalance in demand is just dictated by LA's geography, and there isn't anything we can do in our line configuration to reshape that demand- we can only accommodate it as best we can.
|
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on Sept 16, 2017 13:26:59 GMT -8
IF, and a big if, the Sepulveda Pass project is blessed with HRT, great and awesome. But HRT is very expensive, and this is the kicker, it's even very expensive compared to LRT. That is why the chances are not that great for HRT. I have seen other threads on this board that have kicked the HRT bucket, so to speak, and the costs are magnitudes greater; of course capacity is that much greater......... I would suggest that they will have to use 4 or 5 minute headways if LRT is chosen for the Sepulveda Pass Project, but as you say it might not be enough. This just popped into my head...... why use only 3 car train sets for LRT in the pass, perhaps more cars and 4 minute headways will be more cost effective with longer stations, the Pass and West LA is likely going to be completely Subway anyway. Metro will have to sort it out in their reports and public comments. Another concept for enhancing the capacity of LRT would be changing the seating configuration, specifically so that all seats face the aisle (New York-style seating). This would be a great idea for all of Metro's light rail lines- consider that the Expo is packed at rush hour now with around 60k weekday riders (honestly there's probably additional demand not being served right now just due to capacity limitations). And this problem will pop up a looooooot more as Metro expands and matures, and transit's mode share in LA climbs from 5% to 10, 15, 20... |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 18, 2017 23:02:14 GMT -8
The Train will be underground... Put a $2.50 surcharge on the ticket price if you take the trip over the Sepulveda Pass during rush hour ... give it to whoever wants in on the PPP, and loans Metro some construction money. Let's lowball an estimate at 30,000 rush-hour rides/weekday * 261 weekdays/year * $2.50 = about $20 million/year, or a payback of $600 million over 30 years. Sounds like a PPP could work and make a lot of people happy, as long as Metro makes sure the surcharge doesn't get too expensive. I think your math is off, a $2.5 rush hour luxury tax on using the sepulveda pass train works out to $5 per day per passenger. $100 extra for your rush hour luxury tax per month is certainly high enough to discourage ridership, particularly transit dependent ridership. At $5 per day and 30,000 riders per day and 250 weekdays a year (holiday etc loss, so a slightly more conservative estimate is a stronger basis) for thirty years works out to merely 1.125 billion in revenue captured by the luxury tax. For a project expected to cost ten times that, I don't think a ppp will pencil out in terms of the ppp contributing enough capital to make it worth metros while, if they contributed 600,000,000 they need to earn more than 1.4 billion to out perform the safest investments in the market, and metro probably wouldn't want to engage in a ppp that is only funding 10% or less of the project, not if the cost is having to guarantee the ppp a return based on inequality increasing fare structures. If there were 60,000 riders a day, and $2.25 billion to be earned over 30 years you'd get interest, but again, you'd struggle to raise even 1 billion (600 would be very attractive) with returns that low. And again the drawback of having to guarantee the ppp return is a massive downside. There's a reason tolled tunnels tend to always go bankrupt, the negatively reinforcing cycle of antagonistic market forces of minimum profit level fares at levels that depress ridership below profitable levels is very hard to make actuarily work. And then we have a built and bankrupt tunnel we can't use because if it's used we have to pay the private party and we cannot afford to operate it if we have to pay them their guaranteed returns so the only solvent decision is to simply close the tunnel and not use it. The whole privatized profits and socialized losses theory of ppp infrastructure is pretty negative all around, except for those making the money and blackmailing the tax payers |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 19, 2017 12:55:15 GMT -8
You don't need to look far to see "Exhibit A" of why PPP doesn't work - the Orange County toll roads and the 91 Express Lane.
Even with comparatively low construction costs (ROW was free and no tunnels) the private operators of both 91X and OCTR could not pay back the construction loans from tolls.
Something as important as the SFV-Westside rail has to be a public utility, not a profit center. There is an intangible public good from such infrastructure that cannot be quantified in dollars and cents accruing to a private entity. PPP generally "work" by transferring default risks to the public to make financing cheap(er). If the project can pencil out economically on its own (that is without taking into account the intangible public good), the private sector doesn't need the PPP incentive to build it... they can just obtain the ROW and permits and start digging.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Sept 20, 2017 21:46:43 GMT -8
Put a $2.50 surcharge on the ticket price if you take the trip over the Sepulveda Pass during rush hour ... give it to whoever wants in on the PPP, and loans Metro some construction money. Let's lowball an estimate at 30,000 rush-hour rides/weekday * 261 weekdays/year * $2.50 = about $20 million/year, or a payback of $600 million over 30 years. Sounds like a PPP could work and make a lot of people happy, as long as Metro makes sure the surcharge doesn't get too expensive. I think your math is off, a $2.5 rush hour luxury tax on using the sepulveda pass train works out to $5 per day per passenger. $100 extra for your rush hour luxury tax per month is certainly high enough to discourage ridership, particularly transit dependent ridership. At $5 per day and 30,000 riders per day and 250 weekdays a year (holiday etc loss, so a slightly more conservative estimate is a stronger basis) for thirty years works out to merely 1.125 billion in revenue captured by the luxury tax. For a project expected to cost ten times that, I don't think a ppp will pencil out in terms of the ppp contributing enough capital to make it worth metros while, if they contributed 600,000,000 they need to earn more than 1.4 billion to out perform the safest investments in the market, and metro probably wouldn't want to engage in a ppp that is only funding 10% or less of the project, not if the cost is having to guarantee the ppp a return based on inequality increasing fare structures. If there were 60,000 riders a day, and $2.25 billion to be earned over 30 years you'd get interest, but again, you'd struggle to raise even 1 billion (600 would be very attractive) with returns that low. And again the drawback of having to guarantee the ppp return is a massive downside. There's a reason tolled tunnels tend to always go bankrupt, the negatively reinforcing cycle of antagonistic market forces of minimum profit level fares at levels that depress ridership below profitable levels is very hard to make actuarily work. And then we have a built and bankrupt tunnel we can't use because if it's used we have to pay the private party and we cannot afford to operate it if we have to pay them their guaranteed returns so the only solvent decision is to simply close the tunnel and not use it. The whole privatized profits and socialized losses theory of ppp infrastructure is pretty negative all around, except for those making the money and blackmailing the tax payers I sure wasn't too clear in my earlier post - I was mentioning this as a sample charge to start off a PPP. The $2.50 charge wouldn't be the only way to fund private investment. I should've mentioned that the investor could also be allowed real estate investment along the corridor, advertising rights, and/or amenity space around the subway stations, for instance. This would enable a greater upfront investment due to a larger revenue stream. As to the $2.50 charge, each way ... would riders pay? I think for rush-hour (only), $5/day wouldn't be bad at all. Riders are paying $3/day for parking, and look at how much some people pay to drive in the HOV lanes - $15 (!!). Of course I'd prefer not to charge it (I am a rider, after all). But if I had to wait until I'm dead because Measure M/R/etc. does not allocate enough money ... I'd take the $5/day surcharge (rush-hour) over nothing, or a light rail line. Metro will be hiring Tokyo pushers if we don't build an HRT line! Also, as you know, surcharges are already on certain lines, e.g. the Silver line. As to the financing, that is worthy of a lot of scrutiny. As you say, the usual place where things get messed up is that the government entity guarantees the debt in some way, and the private entity defaults. I believe that the main reason for that is the lower interest rate on government or government secured bonds. If there is a way to float the bonds without a guarantee, or less than 100% secured, I'd sleep easier, myself - so if the private side goes belly-up, we'd basically be getting a discounted subway line, courtesy of the private investors who didn't correctly estimate the ROI. Metro shouldn't pay off private investors for mismanaging a company, either. I'm sure bonds are a very big issue on these PPP proposals, and hopefully Metro is going over the numbers with a microscope and analyzing every possible outcome. For this to work, both the public and private sides have to be absolutely realistic about the ROI - no fudging a la Shikansen; no changing the rules i.e. adding lanes on Sepulveda or the 405 or even the adjacent canyons unless it's been agreed on (this was what precipitated the OCTA's 91 toll-lane buyout IIRC - they just couldn't resist adding more capacity). For anyone involved, there's quite a lot of motivation to dream up some numbers to sell the project (as we've seen on other PPP projects like Eurotunnel and the 91 toll lanes), but we need Metro to do a stone-cold sober assessment and agreement - and to not get into a PPP if the risk to Metro is unacceptable. |
|
. No big deal.