|
|
Post by tramfan on Sept 29, 2017 13:39:56 GMT -8
So a couple of days ago they finally reached an agreement about the Newhall Ranch project that will be a massive "suburban" project with a lot of consequences for transportation. Unfortunately in the plans that were negotiated with environmental opponents nothing was mentioned about transportation needs for the future residents of this project. Okay there were all kinds of points about making it "green" by adding electric car charging, solar panels etc. but did nobody think about the fact that these cars whether electric or ICE will have to use Interstate 5 to connect to the LA areas where the jobs are? You can already imagine how this freeway, the 210 and the 405 will be even more congested. There used to be and it still is more or less in place, a ROW that connected with the Metrolink Antelope Valley line along the 126 highway towards Piru and Santa Paula. Did anybody even Think about public transportation and maybe reopening this ROW?
It seems that macro planners still are living in the 1970's when suburban sprawl was driven by the expansion of car ownership. Haven't we learned anything? What are the alternatives for family homes with a two car garage in this day and age? Apparently not public transportation. If you work anywhere in the LA basin or SF Valley you can bet on at least two hours or more per day in one of your cars...
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 19, 2017 23:57:01 GMT -8
It seems reasonable to do pay for low-cost BRT now and build it in the next 5 years, while focusing on building LRT from Exposition to the Orange Line over the Sepulveda pass.
Then in 10 to 20 years the LRT can be extended north (and south), after another ballot measure passes in 2024 to fund the new (2019) long-range plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 20, 2017 15:07:55 GMT -8
Expo to orange line will be entirely below grade, so there is minimal cost difference between lrt and hrt. Therefore it would be a massive waste to build lrt.
Additionally lrt service does not provide sufficient capacity to meet demand for the sepulveda pass.
LRT is a good solution for the van nuys corridor though and metro will almost certainly pursue this. But the trump administration will probably not send much funding for it. I imagine about half the money LA got for Crenshaw is a likely funding amount. This would then Result in discarding either the lowest performing stations, or the stations closest to other stations. If they can discard four of the fourteen stations and get the price tag down 350 million then it will probably work out in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 27, 2018 13:02:49 GMT -8
This is getting 202 million in addition funding from state transit programs.
You can thank the gas tax increases.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 27, 2018 13:23:53 GMT -8
So if he budget is still 2.4 billion, the extra 200 m brings the funded part of this line up to 1.5.
I think that means we are almost certainly getting LRT for the corridor. The trump admin won’t contribute much, but I bet they kick in another 200-400m
That brings us up to 1.9. That means the LRT can probably be built as an 11 or twelve stop line rather than a fourteen stop line. Figure residents push for extra grade separation goodies (like Brand or the transistion to San Fernando), and we might lose another station.
Still a 1.9 billion fifteen kilometer line with ten stations would remain an excellent proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 27, 2018 16:35:56 GMT -8
So if he budget is still 2.4 billion, the extra 200 m brings the funded part of this line up to 1.5. I think that means we are almost certainly getting LRT for the corridor. The trump admin won’t contribute much, but I bet they kick in another 200-400m That brings us up to 1.9. That means the LRT can probably be built as an 11 or twelve stop line rather than a fourteen stop line. Figure residents push for extra grade separation goodies (like Brand or the transistion to San Fernando), and we might lose another station. Still a 1.9 billion fifteen kilometer line with ten stations would remain an excellent proposition. Light rail stations are not $200M - $300M each. That is the cost of heavy rail below grade stations. Above ground light rail stations are a tiny fraction of this amount. On Expo, they added Farmdale at the last minute for a small amount of money. If it qualifies for New Starts, then it will be a big federal contribution. If it doesn't then it will likely be close to nothing from the feds. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 27, 2018 16:59:21 GMT -8
Last I recall the purple line stations are all budgeted at about 500 million each. The regional connector stations are in the 200-300 range (but even they may be more expensive.
I was thinking one of the three subterranean stations could be removed but relooking at the map that seems unlikely. If three grade stations were removed you are right that won’t have a massive impact on the bottom line, maybe save 250M at most, probably more like 175M
The insane cost of the subterranean station palaces that are so popular to Build are why the global Best practice is to buy lots of tunnel boring machines so your construction timeline is reduced. Since TBMs cost 8 million, buying a half dozen if it lets you start revenue service sooner and reduce labor hours generally makes it a money saving proposition.
(For instance you don’t have to pay the tbm operating crew to do nothing while you take a month to move the tbm from one end of a station box to the next, since you’re removing the tbm, not moving it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 27, 2018 20:30:24 GMT -8
So if he budget is still 2.4 billion, the extra 200 m brings the funded part of this line up to 1.5. I think that means we are almost certainly getting LRT for the corridor. The trump admin won’t contribute much, but I bet they kick in another 200-400m That brings us up to 1.9. That means the LRT can probably be built as an 11 or twelve stop line rather than a fourteen stop line. Figure residents push for extra grade separation goodies (like Brand or the transistion to San Fernando), and we might lose another station. Still a 1.9 billion fifteen kilometer line with ten stations would remain an excellent proposition. Light rail stations are not $200M - $300M each. That is the cost of heavy rail below grade stations. Above ground light rail stations are a tiny fraction of this amount. On Expo, they added Farmdale at the last minute for a small amount of money. If it qualifies for New Starts, then it will be a big federal contribution. If it doesn't then it will likely be close to nothing from the feds. According to page 11 of this document, it doesn't look like they think it would qualify for New Starts. Metro intends to seek $1.5 billion in New Starts funding for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor and $900 million for the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5505022&GUID=E85D9179-1767-4A84-8BC1-62315A58704FHowever, they are asking for money for the transit line in another SB1 funded program, the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program--they are asking for $1.4215 billion for 6 transit lines: www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/docs/sptircp/2018list_applicants.pdfIt seems the funding for this line so far is: $170.1 million from Measure R, Prop C, and various federal/state funds: media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/deis-deir/Ch6.pdf$810.5 million from Measure M: theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/measurem_ordinance_16-01.pdf$202.1 million from STIP: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/stip/2018-stip/022818_STIP_Staff_Recommendation.pdfSB1 pending funding requests that have not yet been approved: $300 million from Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/sccp/docs/022818_2018_SCCP_Receipt_Log.pdfSome portion of the $1.4215 billion from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program request (let's assume $200 million): www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/docs/sptircp/2018list_applicants.pdfThat brings the total to $1,182.7 billion funded, and it might get an additional $500 million from pending SB1 requests. It looks like it is in good shape. They can still request more funding in funding rounds in the future, I think, and there probably are more pots of funding out there they can apply for. They also have a pot of contingency funds in Measure R and M that they can go to (this is how the $300 million increase in Regional Connector budget was paid for, I think) and they are collecting more sales taxes than budgeted. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 28, 2018 0:34:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 28, 2018 9:11:34 GMT -8
Light rail stations are not $200M - $300M each. That is the cost of heavy rail below grade stations. Above ground light rail stations are a tiny fraction of this amount. On Expo, they added Farmdale at the last minute for a small amount of money. If it qualifies for New Starts, then it will be a big federal contribution. If it doesn't then it will likely be close to nothing from the feds. According to page 11 of this document, it doesn't look like they think it would qualify for New Starts. Metro intends to seek $1.5 billion in New Starts funding for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor and $900 million for the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5505022&GUID=E85D9179-1767-4A84-8BC1-62315A58704FHowever, they are asking for money for the transit line in another SB1 funded program, the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program--they are asking for $1.4215 billion for 6 transit lines: www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/docs/sptircp/2018list_applicants.pdfIt seems the funding for this line so far is: $170.1 million from Measure R, Prop C, and various federal/state funds: media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/deis-deir/Ch6.pdf$810.5 million from Measure M: theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/measurem_ordinance_16-01.pdf$202.1 million from STIP: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/stip/2018-stip/022818_STIP_Staff_Recommendation.pdfSB1 pending funding requests that have not yet been approved: $300 million from Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/sccp/docs/022818_2018_SCCP_Receipt_Log.pdfSome portion of the $1.4215 billion from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program request (let's assume $200 million): www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/docs/sptircp/2018list_applicants.pdfThat brings the total to $1,182.7 billion funded, and it might get an additional $500 million from pending SB1 requests. It looks like it is in good shape. They can still request more funding in funding rounds in the future, I think, and there probably are more pots of funding out there they can apply for. They also have a pot of contingency funds in Measure R and M that they can go to (this is how the $300 million increase in Regional Connector budget was paid for, I think) and they are collecting more sales taxes than budgeted. The big if is if SB1 will survive the November recall for it. Polls show voters ready to overturn it, but who knows how it will turn out. I imagine that would kill this project or put it on the backburner for many years. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 29, 2018 1:11:11 GMT -8
According to page 11 of this document, it doesn't look like they think it would qualify for New Starts. Metro intends to seek $1.5 billion in New Starts funding for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor and $900 million for the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor: metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5505022&GUID=E85D9179-1767-4A84-8BC1-62315A58704FHowever, they are asking for money for the transit line in another SB1 funded program, the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program--they are asking for $1.4215 billion for 6 transit lines: www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/docs/sptircp/2018list_applicants.pdfIt seems the funding for this line so far is: $170.1 million from Measure R, Prop C, and various federal/state funds: media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/deis-deir/Ch6.pdf$810.5 million from Measure M: theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/measurem_ordinance_16-01.pdf$202.1 million from STIP: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/stip/2018-stip/022818_STIP_Staff_Recommendation.pdfSB1 pending funding requests that have not yet been approved: $300 million from Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/sccp/docs/022818_2018_SCCP_Receipt_Log.pdfSome portion of the $1.4215 billion from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program request (let's assume $200 million): www.dot.ca.gov/drmt/docs/sptircp/2018list_applicants.pdfThat brings the total to $1,182.7 billion funded, and it might get an additional $500 million from pending SB1 requests. It looks like it is in good shape. They can still request more funding in funding rounds in the future, I think, and there probably are more pots of funding out there they can apply for. They also have a pot of contingency funds in Measure R and M that they can go to (this is how the $300 million increase in Regional Connector budget was paid for, I think) and they are collecting more sales taxes than budgeted. The big if is if SB1 will survive the November recall for it. Polls show voters ready to overturn it, but who knows how it will turn out. I imagine that would kill this project or put it on the backburner for many years. If SB1 is killed, I think those approved funds still will go to the project. They would have been collecting gas tax for over a year by the election. It is future projects that will face funding issues (Crenshaw North, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 2, 2018 8:45:03 GMT -8
I really don't understand this. Why isn't HRT an alternative? The Sepulveda Pass alignment, from the Orange Line all the way down to LAX, will be fully grade-separated out of necessity. We're not going to spend, say, $10 billion only to end up with a subway that can accommodate trains of up to three cars max. The prospective ridership potential warrants higher capacity than that, anyways. And the notion of running five or six-car LRT trains at-grade is ridiculous; if you need that much capacity, then you also need the grade-separation. Thankfully, Metro doesn't strike me as an agency "creative" enough to come up with such an out-of-the-box idea. Even more perplexing than Metro's lack of foresight are their descriptions for the LRT alternatives: Why would you have 14 stations, let alone 28 (!), for a 9.2-mile route? For one thing, the route doesn't warrant that many stations. Furthermore, LA's other rail lines have stations spaced a mile apart. This route only needs 3-5 stations, and because the cost of real estate in the SFV is much cheaper in comparison to the Westside, you could probably build them for $1.5-2 billion. Since they estimate the cost of (non-tram) LRT at $2.7 billion and are also leaning toward that option, why wouldn't you just build HRT instead? |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 2, 2018 8:57:10 GMT -8
Guys, could you imagine riding a 9.2-mile streetcar with 28 stations along its route? How long would that take and who in their right mind would ride that? The bus would be faster.
Who are the idiots at Metro that came up with this idea? This has got to be a new low even for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Apr 2, 2018 9:58:01 GMT -8
This corridor was originally studied as a bus route, either a rapid or BRT, which is more appropriate for the station spacing described.
My guess (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the 14 station alternative would have an underlying local route to serve the smaller intermediate stops, and the 28 station alternative would serve the entire corridor without a local route.
I would also guess that they will reconsider the station spacing and locations if they choose to go with LRT.
As for HRT, the problem is that the travel demand becomes so dispersed within the Valley that you really can't get the demand to justify HRT north of the Orange Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Apr 2, 2018 10:39:37 GMT -8
As for HRT, the problem is that the travel demand becomes so dispersed within the Valley that you really can't get the demand to justify HRT north of the Orange Line. The best and logical solution - HRT starting at the Orange Line (or Metrolink station if there's money) heading south. Rapid Bus north of the Orange Line. Three car LRT isn't going to cut it on day one for West LA and the Sepulveda pass. If it saves any money, go with a single bore north of Ventura Blvd. Heck, go with single bore for the whole thing if the only alternative is LRT. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 2, 2018 12:47:26 GMT -8
In all likelihood if LRT is chosen it will become a 10 or 11 station line.
In terms of interlining with the sepulveda HRT, you could have them alternate, van nuys is through running to lax but only three car LRT trainsets, The sepulveda HRT is Six car HRt trainsets.
If van nuys line has a maximum headway of six minutes, you could have six minute headways on the sepulveda line, with HRT departing three minutes before every LRT departure.
You could shave the budget the cost of the van nuys orange line station by having the sepulveda line pick up the bulk of the cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 2, 2018 13:13:39 GMT -8
I really don't understand this. Why isn't HRT an alternative? The Sepulveda Pass alignment, from the Orange Line all the way down to LAX, will be fully grade-separated out of necessity. We're not going to spend, say, $10 billion only to end up with a subway that can accommodate trains of up to three cars max. The prospective ridership potential warrants higher capacity than that, anyways. And the notion of running five or six-car LRT trains at-grade is ridiculous; if you need that much capacity, then you also need the grade-separation. Thankfully, Metro doesn't strike me as an agency "creative" enough to come up with such an out-of-the-box idea. Even more perplexing than Metro's lack of foresight are their descriptions for the LRT alternatives: Why would you have 14 stations, let alone 28 (!), for a 9.2-mile route? For one thing, the route doesn't warrant that many stations. Furthermore, LA's other rail lines have stations spaced a mile apart. This route only needs 3-5 stations, and because the cost of real estate in the SFV is much cheaper in comparison to the Westside, you could probably build them for $1.5-2 billion. Since they estimate the cost of (non-tram) LRT at $2.7 billion and are also leaning toward that option, why wouldn't you just build HRT instead? They are not considering HRT because daily ridership of the van nuys section is projected at 30,000 riders. HRT stations cost about 400-500 million to build, so a 14 station line would have a budget of about nine billion, even a seven station line would be more like 5.5 billion. Additionally, tunneling proceeds at a max of 15 meters per day. For a fifteen kilometer line like van nuys it would take a pair of tunneling machines three years of continuous tunneling to complete the tunnels, if you add in maintenance breaks and walking the TBMs across stations, probably it’s realistically five years. But once the tunnel is built by the machine there is about fifteen months minimum of heavy construction within the tunnel to finish the tunnel and make it safe. Probably realistically two years of construction of additional time, you save on efficiency by having he tunnel construction crew work continuously behind the TBM, so you only need one crew Now you can cut this time by adding tunneling machines, six total tunneling machines could probably finish the tunneling in a year and a half, but then it would still take two years of construction to finish the tunnels if you triple staff to have three sets of construction crews working behind the TBM pairs. The TBMs themselves are only about eight million each, so it’s not a huge expense to buy extras, but you are actually tripling your daily expenses by having to pay three tunneling crews and three construction crews, that’s a problem because we don’t have the funds all at once, we have a certain amount of funds allocated by R and M per annum, so it means we are limited in our ability to add staff and shrink construction timelines. Also the incentives on the contractor side are all to maintain this lengthy system because they and the construction employees would much rather have their jobs for nine years than three times the number of jobs for three years. So they don’t want to do anything to facilitate shorter construction schedules and metro is reliant on their bids and doesn’t have the power of the purse to demand shorter schedules. |
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Apr 2, 2018 15:40:36 GMT -8
I remain unconvinced that HRT is necessary going down to LAX. The Culver City 6/R6 is definitely not top 10 in the county in terms of ridership, so where are all these people going to come from to push ridership that high? For the pass itself, bus ridership is a poor indicator due to the roundabout route, but I would expect it to be much closer to capacity than it is if we're actually going to fill up an HRT line.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 2, 2018 15:58:58 GMT -8
Well it’s the single most congested corridor in the United States. There is a ton of latent demand from people deterred from making the trip by the congestion and there is a ton of latent demand from people in the congestion that really want an alternative. And there are a few thousand bus riders who would be diverted to rail as well, but for the most part transit dependent riders don’t make the trip because of the congestion the bus is caught in, so the current bus ridership isn’t a good indicator as it’s artificially depressed by the lack of acceptable north south transit arterials through the corridor.
A straight shot rail tunnel with no stops for nine km from Ventura Blvd to UCLA will outcompete traffic by a factor of three or four in terms of travel time for that corridor.
When the train takes ten minutes and the freeway takes 70 to cover the same distance then people will take the train.
Unless the train is under built as LRT from the start to only allow 4000 people per hour (400 ppl per train and ten trains per hour on six minute headways). Then everyone will try to take the train when it opens have a miserable experience as a sardine, immediately abandon the train and go back to the freeway.
Basically if there is so much unmet demand for capacity through the sepulveda pass that two new lanes of capacity filled up instantly when they were opened then that same unmet demand can also be met by a rail option. And like the freeway expansion it would fill very quickly.
If any corridor is carrying 390,000 people per day, and there is still unmet demand, that corridor should get HRT.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 2, 2018 17:10:40 GMT -8
I really don't understand this. Why isn't HRT an alternative? The Sepulveda Pass alignment, from the Orange Line all the way down to LAX, will be fully grade-separated out of necessity. We're not going to spend, say, $10 billion only to end up with a subway that can accommodate trains of up to three cars max. The prospective ridership potential warrants higher capacity than that, anyways. And the notion of running five or six-car LRT trains at-grade is ridiculous; if you need that much capacity, then you also need the grade-separation. Thankfully, Metro doesn't strike me as an agency "creative" enough to come up with such an out-of-the-box idea. Even more perplexing than Metro's lack of foresight are their descriptions for the LRT alternatives: Why would you have 14 stations, let alone 28 (!), for a 9.2-mile route? For one thing, the route doesn't warrant that many stations. Furthermore, LA's other rail lines have stations spaced a mile apart. This route only needs 3-5 stations, and because the cost of real estate in the SFV is much cheaper in comparison to the Westside, you could probably build them for $1.5-2 billion. Since they estimate the cost of (non-tram) LRT at $2.7 billion and are also leaning toward that option, why wouldn't you just build HRT instead? The 28 station option is the tram option. According to the STIP funding request, it is not likely to be chosen. It probably was the originally-studied BRT line converted into a tram. I doubt HRT would be that cheap. Metro is averaging something like $600-$700 million per mile of tunneling. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 2, 2018 17:55:01 GMT -8
I really don't understand this. Why isn't HRT an alternative? The Sepulveda Pass alignment, from the Orange Line all the way down to LAX, will be fully grade-separated out of necessity. We're not going to spend, say, $10 billion only to end up with a subway that can accommodate trains of up to three cars max. The prospective ridership potential warrants higher capacity than that, anyways. And the notion of running five or six-car LRT trains at-grade is ridiculous; if you need that much capacity, then you also need the grade-separation. Thankfully, Metro doesn't strike me as an agency "creative" enough to come up with such an out-of-the-box idea. Even more perplexing than Metro's lack of foresight are their descriptions for the LRT alternatives: Why would you have 14 stations, let alone 28 (!), for a 9.2-mile route? For one thing, the route doesn't warrant that many stations. Furthermore, LA's other rail lines have stations spaced a mile apart. This route only needs 3-5 stations, and because the cost of real estate in the SFV is much cheaper in comparison to the Westside, you could probably build them for $1.5-2 billion. Since they estimate the cost of (non-tram) LRT at $2.7 billion and are also leaning toward that option, why wouldn't you just build HRT instead? The 28 station option is the tram option. According to the STIP funding request, it is not likely to be chosen. It probably was the originally-studied BRT line converted into a tram. I doubt HRT would be that cheap. Metro is averaging something like $600-$700 million per mile of tunneling. Actually to be pedantic the per kilometer of tunneling cost is relatively low, over fifty percent of the purple line budget is in the underground station palaces. Which means per kilometer doesn’t translate as well since it’s dependent much more on number of station palaces to be built for the line, and the cost is much less dependent on the kilometers of tunnel produced But to build the overall van nuys line as hrt line, yes about 350 million per km. So probably at least 5.5 to 6.5 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 3, 2018 0:14:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 3, 2018 0:20:45 GMT -8
The best and logical solution - HRT starting at the Orange Line (or Metrolink station if there's money) heading south. Rapid Bus north of the Orange Line. Three car LRT isn't going to cut it on day one for West LA and the Sepulveda pass. If it saves any money, go with a single bore north of Ventura Blvd. Heck, go with single bore for the whole thing if the only alternative is LRT. Agreed. This myopic, short-term thinking is the reason why LA is in the condition that it's in. Rail alignments don't exist in a vacuum. If you run the Van Nuys portion at-grade and then connect it with the Sepulveda Pass, the quality of service immediately goes down. Why? Because all it takes is one negligent driver or suicidal person to delay the commute of thousands of people. Reliability takes a huge hit and people go back to driving. Round and round we go. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 3, 2018 5:48:54 GMT -8
For HRT, the presentation estimates $5.08 billion in 2008 dollars for the Sepulveda Pass portion and $13.6 billion in 2008 dollars for the full alignment. Measure M estimates $5.674 billion in 2015 dollars for the Sepulveda Pass portion, or a 11.7% increase, which would mean $15.2 billion in 2015 dollars for the full alignment. Measure M also estimates $3.865 billion in 2015 dollars for the Westwood to LAX portion. That means $5.661 billion in 2015 dollars for the San Fernando Valley segment (Full Alignment - Sepulveda Pass - Westwood/LAX = San Fernando Valley segment). 5.5 to 6.5 billion seems about right for this segment in 2020 dollars. The best and logical solution - HRT starting at the Orange Line (or Metrolink station if there's money) heading south. Rapid Bus north of the Orange Line. Three car LRT isn't going to cut it on day one for West LA and the Sepulveda pass. If it saves any money, go with a single bore north of Ventura Blvd. Heck, go with single bore for the whole thing if the only alternative is LRT. Agreed. This myopic, short-term thinking is the reason why LA is in the condition that it's in. Rail alignments don't exist in a vacuum. If you run the Van Nuys portion at-grade and then connect it with the Sepulveda Pass, the quality of service immediately goes down. Why? Because all it takes is one negligent driver or suicidal person to delay the commute of thousands of people. Reliability takes a huge hit and people go back to driving. Round and round we go. I don't think there is any indication that they intend this to run through the Sepulveda Pass project. Because they intend to do the Sepulveda Pass project as a public/private partnership, its likely the Sepulveda Pass project is not connected as they may want to charge a higher fare on the Sepulveda Pass line, and if you look at the LAX people mover PPP, the contractor need to have control over the design/construction of the whole line and operations as they are on the hook for operation and maintenance afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 3, 2018 8:35:17 GMT -8
Four stations for van nuys is not sufficient level of service for the denizens thereof. That is station spacing of every 2.25 miles on average, which is much too high. In general station spacing of about a mile is the maximum you want, and even that can moderately depress ridership.
The van nuys line isn’t just for commuters to bypass the entire valley, it is primarily to serve the transit needs of valley residents.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 3, 2018 8:53:16 GMT -8
For HRT, the presentation estimates $5.08 billion in 2008 dollars for the Sepulveda Pass portion and $13.6 billion in 2008 dollars for the full alignment. Measure M estimates $5.674 billion in 2015 dollars for the Sepulveda Pass portion, or a 11.7% increase, which would mean $15.2 billion in 2015 dollars for the full alignment. Measure M also estimates $3.865 billion in 2015 dollars for the Westwood to LAX portion. That means $5.661 billion in 2015 dollars for the San Fernando Valley segment (Full Alignment - Sepulveda Pass - Westwood/LAX = San Fernando Valley segment). 5.5 to 6.5 billion seems about right for this segment in 2020 dollars. Agreed. This myopic, short-term thinking is the reason why LA is in the condition that it's in. Rail alignments don't exist in a vacuum. If you run the Van Nuys portion at-grade and then connect it with the Sepulveda Pass, the quality of service immediately goes down. Why? Because all it takes is one negligent driver or suicidal person to delay the commute of thousands of people. Reliability takes a huge hit and people go back to driving. Round and round we go. I don't think there is any indication that they intend this to run through the Sepulveda Pass project. Because they intend to do the Sepulveda Pass project as a public/private partnership, its likely the Sepulveda Pass project is not connected as they may want to charge a higher fare on the Sepulveda Pass line, and if you look at the LAX people mover PPP, the contractor need to have control over the design/construction of the whole line and operations as they are on the hook for operation and maintenance afterwards. If the two lines do not converge at the orange line and van nuys Blvd, they should not even build the sepulveda line. If the sepulveda line terminates at sepulveda and the orange line that is horrific transit planning and an absolute waste of money. I do not believe a PPP toll system is possible for the sepulveda line that is financially viable without depressing ridership massively if it is free to drive but 50 to 100 a week to pay the toll train (plus other fares), people will continue to drive. Also tolls massively increase inequality and are more or less racist as well, since employers won’t pay minorities equal wages mostly those who can afford the tolls are whites while those who are burdened by the tolls are minorities. So politically inflicting increased inequality by tolling public transit is a big lift. The PPP has been talked about because they want to bore a Bertha sized tunnel that can also carry cars and then charge mega tolls for cars to use it. This will never happen because the federal ventilation requirements for a tunnel that long carrying cars are spectacularly massive. Given the wealth of the hills of bel aire and the Getty center, a half dozen new six to eight story ventilation complexes scattered throughout the mountains and new access roads to said infrastructure is going to be a lift this project will not be able to manage. The ventilation requirements for tunnels carrying only electrical trainsets and the size of the red line are much less, just try and find the ventilation for the red line going under the same mountains. Also the PPP costs are inflated because in presuming car tunnels, they are also presuming the route will more or less exactly match the route of the 405 so they don’t have to pay for easements, this is really bad for rail and means that any rail speed through the tunnel will be constrained by the radius of the curves the 405 route takes and that means a train speed of about 25 to 35 mph max. That will be bad for ridership, because going slowly through a long tunnel is kind of nerve wracking for riders. Not to mention that a train being forced to go 25 mph through a tunnel is a gargantuan waste of money and capacity. Speaking of the red line, the tunnels under the same mountains, (and the mountains are the same height, so the same overhead weight tolerances,) were done twenty years ago without breaking the bank, those tunnels are one third the length of the distance from UCLA to Ventura Blvd, so it is reasonable to expect the sepulveda line budget for the long tunnel from UCLA to Ventura to be three times the cost of the red line tunnels from Hollywood highland to universal (plus inflation). |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 3, 2018 9:21:17 GMT -8
I may be completely off-base here, but it seems like HRT has more far value south of Nordhoff, and also as a feeder from the San Fernando metrolink station to the westside/LAX, but is hard to justify in between those two points. What if the Sepulveda line was HRT, stretching north to Nordhoff with normal 1mi-ish station spacing, and then continued due north underground for one more station 3.5 miles away at the San Fernando metrolink station? Then you could run BRT between those two points for local service, in whatever service patterns make most sense for the area, as that seems to be a more appropriate mode with that level of density. That would decrease both the number of HRT stations needed as well as the total miles of track, since San Fernando metrolink is due north of Nordhoff/Van Nuys, and the line wouldn't need to turn with the roads.
Might be a terrible idea. Just spitballing.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 3, 2018 10:54:01 GMT -8
For HRT, the presentation estimates $5.08 billion in 2008 dollars for the Sepulveda Pass portion and $13.6 billion in 2008 dollars for the full alignment. Measure M estimates $5.674 billion in 2015 dollars for the Sepulveda Pass portion, or a 11.7% increase, which would mean $15.2 billion in 2015 dollars for the full alignment. Measure M also estimates $3.865 billion in 2015 dollars for the Westwood to LAX portion. That means $5.661 billion in 2015 dollars for the San Fernando Valley segment (Full Alignment - Sepulveda Pass - Westwood/LAX = San Fernando Valley segment). 5.5 to 6.5 billion seems about right for this segment in 2020 dollars. I don't think there is any indication that they intend this to run through the Sepulveda Pass project. Because they intend to do the Sepulveda Pass project as a public/private partnership, its likely the Sepulveda Pass project is not connected as they may want to charge a higher fare on the Sepulveda Pass line, and if you look at the LAX people mover PPP, the contractor need to have control over the design/construction of the whole line and operations as they are on the hook for operation and maintenance afterwards. If the two lines do not converge at the orange line and van nuys Blvd, they should not even build the sepulveda line. If the sepulveda line terminates at sepulveda and the orange line that is horrific transit planning and an absolute waste of money. I do not believe a PPP toll system is possible for the sepulveda line that is financially viable without depressing ridership massively if it is free to drive but 50 to 100 a week to pay the toll train (plus other fares), people will continue to drive. Also tolls massively increase inequality and are more or less racist as well, since employers won’t pay minorities equal wages mostly those who can afford the tolls are whites while those who are burdened by the tolls are minorities. So politically inflicting increased inequality by tolling public transit is a big lift. The PPP has been talked about because they want to bore a Bertha sized tunnel that can also carry cars and then charge mega tolls for cars to use it. This will never happen because the federal ventilation requirements for a tunnel that long carrying cars are spectacularly massive. Given the wealth of the hills of bel aire and the Getty center, a half dozen new six to eight story ventilation complexes scattered throughout the mountains and new access roads to said infrastructure is going to be a lift this project will not be able to manage. The ventilation requirements for tunnels carrying only electrical trainsets and the size of the red line are much less, just try and find the ventilation for the red line going under the same mountains. Also the PPP costs are inflated because in presuming car tunnels, they are also presuming the route will more or less exactly match the route of the 405 so they don’t have to pay for easements, this is really bad for rail and means that any rail speed through the tunnel will be constrained by the radius of the curves the 405 route takes and that means a train speed of about 25 to 35 mph max. That will be bad for ridership, because going slowly through a long tunnel is kind of nerve wracking for riders. Not to mention that a train being forced to go 25 mph through a tunnel is a gargantuan waste of money and capacity. Speaking of the red line, the tunnels under the same mountains, (and the mountains are the same height, so the same overhead weight tolerances,) were done twenty years ago without breaking the bank, those tunnels are one third the length of the distance from UCLA to Ventura Blvd, so it is reasonable to expect the sepulveda line budget for the long tunnel from UCLA to Ventura to be three times the cost of the red line tunnels from Hollywood highland to universal (plus inflation). That is the PPP idea from 10 years ago. There is no proposal for a car tunnel anymore, just ExpressLanes on the 405. The presentation I quoted has estimates for just HRT ($13.6 billion) and HRT+car tunnel ($30.8 billion). I used the HRT only estimate. The new PPP proposals for WSAB and Sepulveda are just for the transit lines. I imagine it would be similar to the LAX people mover PPP. This recent article posted on Metro’s blog hints at the PPP characteristics, which closely match the LAX PPP: thesource.metro.net/2018/02/14/public-private-partnerships-a-tool-for-project-acceleration/The Measure M plan also indicates they will put in Expresslanes on the 405 to help fund the line. Here are the details of the proposed PPP for Sepulveda that we know so far: thesource.metro.net/2017/09/28/metro-moves-to-accelerate-the-measure-m-program/ |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 4, 2018 7:51:58 GMT -8
5.5 to 6.5 billion seems about right for this segment in 2020 dollars. Fair enough. But regarding the subject of cost, it should be noted that the $1.3-billion price tag budgeted in Measure M is for the tram option; they estimate the LRT alternative at $2.7 billion. They would reduce the number of stations to eight or nine, thereby bringing down the cost. Still, they mention that 2.5 miles would be underground. So even LRT isn’t within the budget. I agree with bzzzt. Just build this as a BRT for now and eventually augment it with a HRT down the line. Whatever they decide to do, it shouldn’t preclude that possibility. The corridor itself doesn’t justify the expense, but like I said, transit lines don’t exist in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 4, 2018 8:21:55 GMT -8
5.5 to 6.5 billion seems about right for this segment in 2020 dollars. Fair enough. But regarding the subject of cost, it should be noted that the $1.3-billion price tag budgeted in Measure M is for the tram option; they estimate the LRT alternative at $2.7 billion. They would reduce the number of stations to eight or nine, thereby bringing down the cost. Still, they mention that 2.5 miles would be underground. So even LRT isn’t within the budget. I agree with bzzzt. Just build this as a BRT for now and eventually augment it with a HRT down the line. Whatever they decide to do, it shouldn’t preclude that possibility. The corridor itself doesn’t justify the expense, but like I said, transit lines don’t exist in a vacuum. Based on the STIP request, they said there is a tram option and LRT with tunneling option, and the Measure M figure is congruent with LRT. I assume that means LRT without tunneling. Anyway, because of SB1, they already have $1.2 billion guaranteed funding and it seems likely to get another $400-$500 million from SB1. I think it is in good shape for finding funding to fill the gap. The STIP application proposes construction starting in 2021 and ending in 2027. I'm sure the other SB1 pots do not allow the funds awarded for this corridor to be just sat on until funding comes in decades later to convert it to HRT. I don't think you will find an extra $3-$4 billion to make this HRT in the next 20 years. Makes more sense to put extra funding into the Crenshaw North, Vermont Subway, or fixing the Blue/Expo line in Downtown LA. |
|
