|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 4, 2018 9:23:40 GMT -8
Thinking about it some more, the idea that the Van Nuys portion of the HRT alternative would cost more than the LAX extension is a bit incredulous, especially when they have the same amount of stations and similar route length.
Also, where does CAHSR factor into this? Will it share the same tracks with Metrolink?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Apr 4, 2018 9:29:41 GMT -8
But if the Sepulveda Pass is HRT and the Van Nuys segment is LRT, then we'll have our own version of the TTC Subway/Scarborough RT. It's just poor planning. I understand that cost is an issue, but we shouldn't waste money just because we have money to spend.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Apr 4, 2018 10:03:12 GMT -8
Does a reason exist that the MTA can only run three car LRT trains. Yes on the Blue line downtown has issues with train length but not the rest of the system. Sacramento RT runs four car trains on a regular basis. Most platforms might not be long enough but for a new line just build it longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 5, 2018 11:32:15 GMT -8
Does a reason exist that the MTA can only run three car LRT trains. Yes on the Blue line downtown has issues with train length but not the rest of the system. Sacramento RT runs four car trains on a regular basis. Most platforms might not be long enough but for a new line just build it longer. The main reason is Metro never planned for longer trains so they have too many platforms on the surface running segments with physical limitations (e.g. Pico Stanton and Washington Station). There is no physical room to extend the platform unless you relocate the station. And if you have 1 station like that on the line, then you can't run longer trains. the Pico and Washington stations (and a few stations in Long Beach) are precisely the problem. But you are right that on a new build line, like the proposed Sepulveda-LAX line, there is no reason why Metro can't run longer trains from the get go and make sure the platforms are long enough. Metro can operate longer LRT, and/or it can remove some (or nearly all seats), and/or it can use modern trains with open gangway to increase capacity. The distinction between LRT and HRT is mainly in whether it uses 3rd rail or overhead cantenary. In another word, it is a technical distinction, not a capacity distinction. Outside North America, there are a lot of examples of high capacity metro with overhead cantenary that runs underground, above ground, or at surface, or all three modes. For example, the Rome Metro...   Or Shanghai Metro...   These metro lines are high capacity but in the US, we will refer to them as LRT. I have no problem if Metro constructs the Sepulveda-LAX line as a high capacity LRT. 3rd rail is not necessary to have high capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by soundguise on Apr 6, 2018 15:55:34 GMT -8
I have been thinking for a while that what might help with capacity without actually building longer platforms might be a use of open gangways. You usually see this with HRT style trains but what if you built a train the length of a three car LRV set as one continuous train? Articulated at the spots where the connections between trains are now. I think there are integrated tram like systems that are long like this somewhere in the world. Certainly it should be possible. The maintenance facilities might need upgrades since a train like this wouldn't usually be split up but probably could be for heavy maintenance so maybe just the light stuff and cleaning.
This doesn't negate the idea of longer platforms on a new line but might offer lines like Expo and Blue a bit of breathing room.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 7, 2018 8:29:21 GMT -8
4-car light rail trains won’t fit on most blocks in the basin. If a train has to stop at a light it will block the intersection behind it.
There are also power limitations. Each LRV has its own power. Sacramento runs 4-car trains but at only 15-minute service that’s 16 train cars per hour. LA runs 30 train cars per hour, soon to be 36. Power consumption aside, no rider would think less frequent, longer trains are better.
|
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on Apr 7, 2018 18:52:26 GMT -8
The distinction between LRT and HRT is mainly in whether it uses 3rd rail or overhead cantenary. In another word, it is a technical distinction, not a capacity distinction. Outside North America, there are a lot of examples of high capacity metro with overhead cantenary that runs underground, above ground, or at surface, or all three modes. , yes. But light rail vehicles built to our Metro's specs are way too thin. For the Sepulveda/LAX line, we simply need the most heavy-duty equipment there is on the market, and that doesn't come close- even if you tricked them out with open-gangways, aisle-facing seating, and the like. The thinnest vehicle I can think of used on one of the top-ranking busiest metro lines in the world are the little IRT vehicles they use on the Lexington Avenue line in New York. That line is four-tracked, and New York is still spending billions on a new subway line 2 blocks east to relieve its legendary overcrowding. I've always pictured special heavy-rail vehicles for Sepulveda, but vehicles built to A650 (red/purple line car) specs, with open gangways, could easily be suited for the job. It would certainly make car orders easier. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Apr 8, 2018 20:10:30 GMT -8
Haven't visited the forum in a while and wanted to add a few things.
Regarding the the number of stations, on the one hand 14 does seem high, but if you live in the Valley you will realize that all of the stations are at major East-West boulevards and streets; once it crosses Woodman and turns east, it then crosses a couple of major North-South streets. These are streets that will/could supply ridership to the line so their elimination is imho suspect at best, really bad at worst. However, I would not feel bad if they eliminated Arleta because it doesn't seem to be that great of a ridership generator except for 2 things, Arleta becomes Devonshire and there is a high school nearby but they could just as easily use Woodman a couple blocks to the west........ so I vote for eliminating Arleta.
From the meetings I attended, they seemed pretty clear that the choice was between LRT and it's 14 stops vs. a 28 stop tram. They implied that they could do LRT without a tunnel. My sense was that 28 stops was not popular at all and the LRT was very popular.
As was noted above, in some respects this line could be similar to the Blue Line but if Metro designed the line for more that 3 cars from the beginning, and going from my recent trip done Van Nuys Blvd, they should be able to easily accommodate more than 3 car sets.
If I recall correctly, Measures R + M combined provided 1.2 Billion or so to this line.(Scratch what I just wrote)
Actually as I write this I recall that at the last public meetings Metro said that they had secured funding for at least the Tram option which is 1.3 Billion. I remember them explicitly saying that if the LRT was chosen it could be delayed. So the funds that Metro recently received from the State of California are in addition to the R+M funding. It seems to me that Metro is trying to build the LRT, but I could be wrong.
At least at the meetings I went to, combining the Van Nuys and Sepulveda pass lines were popular, however with a PPP involved who knows.
As someone who has ridden the San Diego Tram, I find it a bit weird to call it a tram as their cars are large and more like the Red/Purple line cars and not like our Metro system LRT cars. But I do understand why they are called a tram. I told this to an engineer at one of the meetings and he disagreed with me that they were larger than our LRT cars. Oy vey.
The Van Nuys line will intersect with 2 Metrolink stations, the South bound Santa Clarita line and the East Bound Ventura County line. It seems to me that if you want to get people into West LA from those regions, a better and faster system is key. Preferably a one seat ride to UCLA and beyond.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 9, 2018 17:53:38 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 TIRCP request was detailed here:  thesource.metro.net/2018/04/09/metro-is-applying-for-1-4-billion-in-state-tircp-funds-to-help-fund-six-transit-projects/So they are asking for $300 million from the TIRCP. They are asking another $300 million from the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: www.catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/sccp/docs/022818_2018_SCCP_Receipt_Log.pdfThat brings my total to $1.683 billion, if they get everything they request from the pending requests. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Apr 9, 2018 19:19:40 GMT -8
I think the monies are more like
1,263,000,000 Measures R, M, STIP
300,000,000 TIRCP
300,000,000 Congested Corridors
-----------------
1,863,000,000
I don't want to split hairs, but they were explicit in the EIR meetings that they had the $1.3 Billion to cover the cost of the Tram option if it was the community selection. The LRT was the only option, and they stressed this, that would be delayed if it was selected. Yes if you look up the numbers the R+M monies it doesn't add up (but comes close) but they were quite confident about it being built as is and without this new money coming in from the state.
But they also kind of threw it out there that the could build LRT without a tunnel but gave no figures as to how much that would save. Metro's next meeting on the issue is in June but I assume that it might be conveniently postponed for a while especially if the issue of where to place the storage yard is still a burning issue. I think that the storage yard in the Valley could also serve the combined Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass lines. I doubt anyone wants to contemplate looking at a map telling people in West LA that Metro needs your property.
In any case, and by one means or another, they have exceeded the amount of money that they need for a tram. I wonder why.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 11, 2018 11:18:09 GMT -8
The distinction between LRT and HRT is mainly in whether it uses 3rd rail or overhead cantenary. In another word, it is a technical distinction, not a capacity distinction. Outside North America, there are a lot of examples of high capacity metro with overhead cantenary that runs underground, above ground, or at surface, or all three modes. , yes. But light rail vehicles built to our Metro's specs are way too thin. For the Sepulveda/LAX line, we simply need the most heavy-duty equipment there is on the market, and that doesn't come close- even if you tricked them out with open-gangways, aisle-facing seating, and the like. The thinnest vehicle I can think of used on one of the top-ranking busiest metro lines in the world are the little IRT vehicles they use on the Lexington Avenue line in New York. That line is four-tracked, and New York is still spending billions on a new subway line 2 blocks east to relieve its legendary overcrowding. I've always pictured special heavy-rail vehicles for Sepulveda, but vehicles built to A650 (red/purple line car) specs, with open gangways, could easily be suited for the job. It would certainly make car orders easier. I agree that a modern heavy rail with open gangway cars is best for the Sepulveda Pass. My intention with my post is to just make sure people understand high capacity metro and LRT technology are not mutually exclusive - it's entirely possible to have high capacity LRT (almost all of the LRT line in Shanghai have ridership higher than our red/purple HRT line). The supposed Sepulveda line will be fully grade separated mostly under ground so it will be very expensive. But since it is a new build line, Metro can design and spec it however it wants. If Metro can meet the capacity objectives with LRT and shave a lot of costs, then it's something we should consider (e.g. they can spec wider LRT cars just for this line etc.) We shouldn't shut the door on LRT just because the existing LRT network in LA is medium capacity metro. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 17, 2018 8:55:34 GMT -8
If ya want a single seat ride from Sylmar to LAX, everyone needs to start clamoring for the BART single bore option to be brought to the combined Van Nuys and Sepulveda Lines.  If we had a single 45 km tunnel from LAX to Sylmar, it should be built with four TBMs working simultaneously. you would launch one TBM south from parking lot 36 in Westwood towards LAX (possible extraction pit, end of line in Inglewood at the new stadium complex) you would launch a second TBM north from parking lot 36 in Westwood towards the Orange Line/Maintanence facility proposed for the Van Nuys line. you would launch a third TBM north from the Orange Line Mainenance facility you would launch a fourth TBM north from Roscoe Van Nuys towards Sylmar. Why have four TBMs? Because TBMs are not very expensive but they are slow. For a route 45,000 meters long it would take 3000 days for one TBM to tunnel. That's 8.4 years, more like 11-12 years with 5 day work weeks, holidays and maintenance stops). with four working simultaneously it would be cut down to closer to 750 tunneling days, 3 years of tunneling. The biggest downside to large bore TBMs is the greater amount of material to excavate. Twin 7 meter tunnels excavate about 75 cubic meters of soil per meter of tunneling one 12 meter tunnel excavates about 115 cubic meters of soil per meter of tunneling. on the other hand, two twin 7 meter tunnels have a combined exterior tunnel circumferance of 44 meters, while a single bore 12 meter tunnel has an exterior tunnel circumferance of 37 meters. So it uses about the same amount of concrete, or slightly less. (iirc I think a single bore tunnel has to be a bit thicker than twin bore tunnels) For the 7 kilometer three station BART extension (the last station at the airport is aboveground), BART has figured that the single bore method is going to save them about 70 million versus doing double bore. The big savings are not having to do utility relocation and build station boxes. Station boxes wind up costing 500 million each to build, and utility relocation for each station box involves about 3 years of labor and extensive non stop street disruption. with a single bore tunnel you eliminate all those downsides. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 17, 2018 9:22:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 25, 2018 7:08:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on Apr 25, 2018 11:11:35 GMT -8
where will they be made available?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 25, 2018 20:50:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on Apr 26, 2018 12:06:25 GMT -8
Couldn't help but notice that the 96th St infill station, which was recommended, is supposed to cost over half a billion in total. Since when do single stations cost that much?
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Apr 27, 2018 9:28:33 GMT -8
It's much bigger than your typical light rail station (3 platforms, giant elevated walkway, bus plaza, drop-off area), so I'd expect it to be substantially more, but $500 million seems too high by a factor of 2-3. It definitely should be cheaper than a Regional Connector station, but isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 1, 2018 17:30:21 GMT -8
96th street station on the Crenshaw line? That's not really relevant to this topic...
But I suspect the price tag includes the multimodal transit center and the shopping plaza Metro wanted. Still, $500m seems like a lot when you consider the new Banc of California soccer stadium for LAFC only costs $325m and it is state of art spare no expenses construction - and that price tag included demolition of the Sports Arena and digging a giant hole in the ground (the playing surface is some 20ft below street level). The infill station at 96th street involves only above ground construction and no significant demolition.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 15, 2018 18:23:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 17, 2018 14:11:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 18, 2018 10:23:58 GMT -8
The LRT recommended is also not in the DEIR, it is a variant on alternative four.
This LRT variant has no tunnel/grade separation, so the cost has dropped from 2.8 billion for LRT to 1.3 billion for LRT.
That's a pretty huge victory for at grade rail, and might be the only time in metro's history they've saved money on construction!
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 18, 2018 11:14:23 GMT -8
The LRT recommended is also not in the DEIR, it is a variant on alternative four. This LRT variant has no tunnel/grade separation, so the cost has dropped from 2.8 billion for LRT to 1.3 billion for LRT. That's a pretty huge victory for at grade rail, and might be the only time in metro's history they've saved money on construction! There should be more than $1.3 billion already dedicated to the project, though. Measure R: $63.5 million (the number should be higher with inflation adjustment) Measure M: $810.5 million 2018 STIP grant: $202.1 million 2018 TIRCP grant: $205 million That gets you to $1.3 billion. The old draft EIR for the project also identified about $100 million in additional funding from federal, state and other local sources (Prop A and C). I guess they want to use those funds and future funding opportunities for other projects, though. |
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by expo on Jun 18, 2018 12:22:35 GMT -8
Anyone know why they are going with such dense station spacing? It seems ridiculous, and is likely a big reason for the incredibly slow 18mph speeds that are projected.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 18, 2018 16:35:29 GMT -8
Anyone know why they are going with such dense station spacing? It seems ridiculous, and is likely a big reason for the incredibly slow 18mph speeds that are projected. Because the valley east west grid is both regular and robust and they all have trunk bus service on them, every station connections to strong bus service that will feed that station. And they have the money for fourteen stations And they can always cut the lowest performing station(s) in the FEIR phase, particularly if they need to find some money for an aerial grade separation at the most congested intersection in response to community input. One station (Arleta?) may be included as a planned sacrifice. But they seem to be erring on the side of comprehensive coverage for the residents of the area to use the line rather than erring in the side of non area commuters wanting to speed through the area as fast as possible. |
|
expo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by expo on Jun 19, 2018 7:40:05 GMT -8
Anyone know why they are going with such dense station spacing? It seems ridiculous, and is likely a big reason for the incredibly slow 18mph speeds that are projected. Because the valley east west grid is both regular and robust and they all have trunk bus service on them, every station connections to strong bus service that will feed that station. And they have the money for fourteen stations And they can always cut the lowest performing station(s) in the FEIR phase, particularly if they need to find some money for an aerial grade separation at the most congested intersection in response to community input. One station (Arleta?) may be included as a planned sacrifice. But they seem to be erring on the side of comprehensive coverage for the residents of the area to use the line rather than erring in the side of non area commuters wanting to speed through the area as fast as possible. Ahh got it. Thanks for that explanation, I've been asking this question everywhere and this is the only good answer I've gotten. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jun 19, 2018 13:52:07 GMT -8
Anyone know why they are going with such dense station spacing? It seems ridiculous, and is likely a big reason for the incredibly slow 18mph speeds that are projected. I covered this a page or two back, but the highlight from what I wrote earlier is that the stations on Van Nuys Blvd are all major East/West streets/Boulevards until Van Nuys reaches Woodman Ave (a major North/South ave) and turns eastbound before heading north again. I laid out reasons why the Arleta avenue station could be eliminated; and it is in imho the only station that could/should be eliminated. But I will play devils advocate and state that it may be worthwhile to keep because Arleta Ave becomes Devonshire St, which is a major East/West street in the north valley; there is a high school that is a couple of blocks away.
I saw an article some years ago on the grid system in the valley and newer western parts of the valley follow a usual pattern of major streets every mile or and the streets were aligned at different east/west alignment than the older eastern parts of the valley.
|
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jun 25, 2018 5:52:04 GMT -8
I’m surprised there isn’t more outrage from most here about this project. First, I get the amount of money being saved is important on the subway portion but if it speeds the line up and makes it more efficient - isn’t it worth it?
But that’s not the main priority - the key is how this line relates to the Sepulveda line and a painfully slow non-grade seperated LRT is going to make it so riders are forced to endure unneccesarry transfers.
How impressive would this like be if it went from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium as a one seat ride?
Metro needs to choose one of three options before making a decision that will be regretted for generations:
1. Count the area SOUTH of the Van Nuys METROLink station as part of the Sepulveda corridor, thus making the Sepulveda line HRT from Inglewood stadium to Van Nuys MetroLink (instead of just to the orange line) - and make the area from Sylmar MetroLink to Van Nuys MetroLink a streetcar or BRT.
2. Commit that the Sepulveda line will be be Light Rail (mostly underground) so that it connects as one line to the Van Nuys line AND redesign the Van Nuys line as a faster and more efficient line, meaning go from 14 stations to 8 stations and make more of it grade separated
3. Bite the bullet and take money from elsewhere to commit to the Van Nuys line being HEAVY RAIL so as it connects to the Sepulveda line. Even if this means shortening the length of the Van Nuys line
Having Van Nuys & Sepulveda be two separate lines is a generational screw up by Metro. It’s an uphill climb to turn the attitudes of car centric Angelino’s into mass transit rail riders ... fast, speedy, efficient, convenient lines are what will do that. For instance I think the regional connector will make a huge difference for the blue and gold/expo lines, I think a Vermont extension would make a massive ridership impact on the red line, and I think a single one seat ride from AT LEAST Van Nuys ML all the way to Inglewood stadium would become easily the most riden North American rail line outside of NYC.
Make it happen Metro. No matter what it takes.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 25, 2018 9:47:28 GMT -8
I’m surprised there isn’t more outrage from most here about this project. First, I get the amount of money being saved is important on the subway portion but if it speeds the line up and makes it more efficient - isn’t it worth it? But that’s not the main priority - the key is how this line relates to the Sepulveda line and a painfully slow non-grade seperated LRT is going to make it so riders are forced to endure unneccesarry transfers. How impressive would this like be if it went from Sylmar to Inglewood stadium as a one seat ride? Metro needs to choose one of three options before making a decision that will be regretted for generations: 1. Count the area SOUTH of the Van Nuys METROLink station as part of the Sepulveda corridor, thus making the Sepulveda line HRT from Inglewood stadium to Van Nuys MetroLink (instead of just to the orange line) - and make the area from Sylmar MetroLink to Van Nuys MetroLink a streetcar or BRT. 2. Commit that the Sepulveda line will be be Light Rail (mostly underground) so that it connects as one line to the Van Nuys line AND redesign the Van Nuys line as a faster and more efficient line, meaning go from 14 stations to 8 stations and make more of it grade separated 3. Bite the bullet and take money from elsewhere to commit to the Van Nuys line being HEAVY RAIL so as it connects to the Sepulveda line. Even if this means shortening the length of the Van Nuys line Having Van Nuys & Sepulveda be two separate lines is a generational screw up by Metro. It’s an uphill climb to turn the attitudes of car centric Angelino’s into mass transit rail riders ... fast, speedy, efficient, convenient lines are what will do that. For instance I think the regional connector will make a huge difference for the blue and gold/expo lines, I think a Vermont extension would make a massive ridership impact on the red line, and I think a single one seat ride from AT LEAST Van Nuys ML all the way to Inglewood stadium would become easily the most riden North American rail line outside of NYC. Make it happen Metro. No matter what it takes. I think we will see a continuous LRT line through the sepulveda tunnels, there is no way that the metrics on the ridership at sepulveda will pout perform Van nuys The Van Nuys LRT was never conceived of as a super commuter service, it was about bringing improved neighborhood service to fill the needs of a dense and underserved community. That’s why there are fourteen stations, it’s not about speed it’s about the locals. An LRT that only has eight stops doesn’t serve the needs of the neighborhood very well. And I would imagine that since the line is at grade in mixed traffic, having eight stops would not speed up its performance very much, they’re still going to get stopped at red lights and bunch during rush hour. Local rail service that is 45% less coverage but is now ten percent faster end to end is not a very good trade off. The abandoned subway section cost nearly a billion dollars to build and only increased the overall speed of the line by two minutes. And it probably had a longer construction schedule with far greater disruptions in the station areas. Defining the area south of the Van Nuys metrolink as the sepulveda corridor is a good idea. HRT from sylmar to the stadium is a good idea, but only if metro were to commit to wide single bore 12 meter tunneling for the entire length that would be four tracked on two permanent levels with express and local service. Inclusive of this, metro would also have to commit to standardized minimalistic off street station excavations and a commitment to cost control and the principle that subway HRT should never cost more than 150 million per km to build. We pay several hundred million per station in a premium price penalty by insisting that our stations all have to be under the street and custom architectural wonders. Not to mention, building all these custom station palaces wastes a lot years and money on planning, engineering and design for no benefit other than being an expensive works project for white collar architects and engineers. A commitment to an international standard like that of 150 million per km, would work out to 6.75 billion for the entire 45 km distance from sylmar to lax. (And we would need at least four tunneling machines working simultaneously in different sections of the line) |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 25, 2018 10:48:55 GMT -8
ESFV project probably would have been better served as a high quality BRT but Metro owes the Valley a light rail line so the fix was in very early to do this as rail.
Many people here (me included) saw the fix was in early on when Metro decided to study ESFV and Sepulveda as two separate corridors so the "outrage" you are looking for already happened 7 pages ago (and also in another thread).
culvercitylocke is right that the focus of this line is to provide local N-S connections to the major E-W bus lines so that's why it ended up with 14 stations. One of the key is to provide northeast valley with access to Orange line (and thus Red line) so shortening the line to north of Van Nuys Metrolink wouldn't make any sense.
|
|
