|
|
Post by Upslope on Aug 8, 2018 21:37:03 GMT -8
That's not how it worked out with the Chunnel, where everyone took major losses/write downs on the debt but it kept operating throughout various restructurings and crises. Why would this be any different? Can you imagine the political outcry of keeping a major infrastructure link closed due to the guaranteed profits a private entity? Said entity would have a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning a major govt contract in SoCal anytime soon. So, yes, the project is likely to go BK, but the debt will be restructured, investors will take losses, trains will keep operating and I'll have lunch. My post above was in response to culvercitylocke re: P3, not Numble's well-stated response. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Aug 9, 2018 18:32:59 GMT -8
The investors don't take the losses in the US, the public does. Example: the failed toll roads in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Upslope on Aug 9, 2018 23:08:01 GMT -8
The investors don't take the losses in the US, the public does. Example: the failed toll roads in the US. This implies there is a single structuring model nationwide for these partnerships and a 100% consistent set of historical outcomes when they go bust. I don't believe either of these statements are remotely true. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Aug 13, 2018 14:55:51 GMT -8
The investors don't take the losses in the US, the public does. Example: the failed toll roads in the US. This implies there is a single structuring model nationwide for these partnerships and a 100% consistent set of historical outcomes when they go bust. I don't believe either of these statements are remotely true. My reply was meant to be a snarky generalization. But in my opinion my statement is true regardless of the "structuring model" sold to the public. In the US, the public takes the financial risks and industry takes the financial rewards. |
|
|
|
Post by 4BHTransit on Aug 25, 2018 11:48:18 GMT -8
Locke, I disagree with your passenger calculation -- metro studied the Sepulveda Pass Traffic a while back (link below), where they computed 355k people cross the pass every day under the no build scenario (in 2040 or so). If we cut that in half we get almost 180k for one direction traffic. I'm not sure how that traffic is distributed between peak and off-peak traffic, but for simplicity let's just say it's completely even and almost all of it happens over 18 hours. That implies just 10,000 people / hour on its own, and I would think peak traffic per hour is double, perhaps triple that. We're in a situation where building HRT on the corridor is probably overkill in terms of capacity, and LRT isn't enough. If costs are roughly the same as they'd both be fully grade-separated to Wilshire, wouldn't it make more sense to build HRT given continuous population growth? The other reason I'm not sold on LRT is that both the feeder lines will have significant at-grade portions, and there's no way you'll get 2.5 minute alternating headways with the likely delays on those lines. I think HRT or LRT for the pass is the biggest question about where Metro ends up taking the Purple Line. I'm intrigued by the idea of extending it to LAX if Metro opts for LRT, and then perhaps making it the main LA circle line far off in the future. However, if we go HRT on the pass, it'd make sense to extend that line to LAX. I'm curious to get your thoughts on these, as well as on the feasibility of building HRT underneath the Wilshire / Westwood Purple Line. media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/final_compendium_report/4.0%20Potential%20Ridership-Usage%20of%20Alternative%20Concepts.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 26, 2018 21:17:08 GMT -8
I noticed in this old board report that they previously evaluated constructing and operating the Regional Connector and Crenshaw Lines as P3s. Pages 29 and 31 of the PDF (23 and 25 based on page numbers) offer the main summaries: media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/07_july/20140716p&pitem27.pdfThe Regional Connector was not recommended for a P3 because it interlines with the Blue, Gold and Expo lines, making it difficult for a P3 partner to provide operations and maintenance under a DBFOM contract. The Crenshaw Line P3 recommendation was for the P3 partner to operate and maintain the Green Line as well as the Crenshaw Line (maybe because they want them to share the new maintenance facility, or maybe because that would mean larger O&M payments to the P3 partner?). In the end, they did not recommend a P3 and one of the concerns was that the P3 partner would not want to take on the maintenance of the 20+ year old Green Line. Since they are pursuing a P3 for the Sepulveda Line, there may be similar concerns that lead to the decision whether or not to interline with the ESFV Line. If they go with a P3 contract where the P3 partner must operate and maintain the line after construction, they may not want interlining with the ESFV Line unless they operate the whole line, and they may not want to operate the ESFV Line if they are not the ones building it. On the other hand, it would be a “new” line compared to the Green Line, and the ESFV Line contract will include a maintenance facility that they can use. HRT would require either building/expanding the maintenance facility to accommodate the HRT vehicles, or interlining with the Purple Line to use the downtown maintenance facility (which may need to be expanded to maintain additional vehicles for the Sepulveda service). |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jun 17, 2019 15:47:01 GMT -8
KNX radio said Metro board has approved light rail line down Van Nuys BL. not much other detail
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 18, 2019 8:53:18 GMT -8
KNX radio said Metro board has approved light rail line down Van Nuys BL. not much other detail Yes, LRT down Van Nuys Blvd was approved by the Metro Board nearly a year ago, before this thread was even started. The discussion in this thread is about the Sepulveda Line (and also, how it might interact with the already-approved Van Nuys LRT.) |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 18, 2019 9:05:56 GMT -8
I've got to be honest, I'm torn between LRT and HRT for the Sepulveda Line. LRT gives connectivity to the Van Nuys and Crenshaw/Green Lines. But HRT gives a potential connection to the Purple Line.
One thing is non-negotiable: there must be a stop at UCLA (separate from the Wilshire/Westwood stop)!
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 18, 2019 22:01:13 GMT -8
I've got to be honest, I'm torn between LRT and HRT for the Sepulveda Line. LRT gives connectivity to the Van Nuys and Crenshaw/Green Lines. But HRT gives a potential connection to the Purple Line. One thing is non-negotiable: there must be a stop at UCLA (separate from the Wilshire/Westwood stop)! The other big thing is that LRT doesn't have enough capacity to serve the corridor between the Orange Line and the Purple Line. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 19, 2019 16:09:19 GMT -8
I've got to be honest, I'm torn between LRT and HRT for the Sepulveda Line. LRT gives connectivity to the Van Nuys and Crenshaw/Green Lines. But HRT gives a potential connection to the Purple Line. One thing is non-negotiable: there must be a stop at UCLA (separate from the Wilshire/Westwood stop)! The other big thing is that LRT doesn't have enough capacity to serve the corridor between the Orange Line and the Purple Line. Which is WHY..... The obvious solution is ... make the Van Nuys line HEAVY RAIL. To save money make the line a couple miles shorter or something. Heavy Rail from Van Nuys ML station to LAX/ Inglewood stadium would be the most ridden subway line in North America outside of NY |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 19, 2019 17:00:42 GMT -8
The other big thing is that LRT doesn't have enough capacity to serve the corridor between the Orange Line and the Purple Line. Which is WHY..... The obvious solution is ... make the Van Nuys line HEAVY RAIL. To save money make the line a couple miles shorter or something. Heavy Rail from Van Nuys ML station to LAX/ Inglewood stadium would be the most ridden subway line in North America outside of NY Where’s the money Lebowski? Van nuys is not grade separated and costs 140 million per mile. HRT is grade separated and purple costs 600 million per mile. Additionally every metro report has several documents in them that state forthrightly that industry standard practice is that every in-kind project shall cost 50 percent more per mile than the most recent previous project’s per mile cost. Therefore if van nuys is HRT, it shall auto magically cost 900 million per mile, all contractors, civil servants, and elected officials agree the next project must cost this much, because that is just the way things are, contractors must get their rent, politicians get their kickbacks and civil servants their lifetime jobs. Given the 1.3 billion budget of van nuys you get about 1.5 miles of HRT at the 900 million per mile expected costs. If we have to build HRT at 900 million per mile, we might as well sink it into the Sepulveda line. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 20, 2019 1:04:54 GMT -8
Which is WHY..... The obvious solution is ... make the Van Nuys line HEAVY RAIL. To save money make the line a couple miles shorter or something. Heavy Rail from Van Nuys ML station to LAX/ Inglewood stadium would be the most ridden subway line in North America outside of NY Where’s the money Lebowski? Van nuys is not grade separated and costs 140 million per mile. HRT is grade separated and purple costs 600 million per mile. Additionally every metro report has several documents in them that state forthrightly that industry standard practice is that every in-kind project shall cost 50 percent more per mile than the most recent previous project’s per mile cost. Therefore if van nuys is HRT, it shall auto magically cost 900 million per mile, all contractors, civil servants, and elected officials agree the next project must cost this much, because that is just the way things are, contractors must get their rent, politicians get their kickbacks and civil servants their lifetime jobs. Given the 1.3 billion budget of van nuys you get about 1.5 miles of HRT at the 900 million per mile expected costs. If we have to build HRT at 900 million per mile, we might as well sink it into the Sepulveda line. This goes back to the fundamental problem of the Government not doing enough. The Federal Government should be chipping in for some of these projects in a much bigger way and the State of California should as well. The State Budget is around 250 Billion, imagine what could be done if they took 6 billion from the budget every year and gave 2 Billion to BART in SF and 4 Billion to METRO? They could build out the entire system in the next 10 years. Back to reality: The Sepulveda Line is supposed to go to Van Nuys ML station already, which is a quarter of the way up the intended Van Nuys line route - even using the Van Nuys Line money to extend that another 2 miles, or if they even got 1 billion more they could extend it all the way to woodman and Van Nuys...gotta think outside the box |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 26, 2019 16:51:40 GMT -8
We are just beating a dead horse. The Van Nuys line is a local circulator to facilitate bus transfers. It was designed that way, and it will be build that way. If anyone on the Van Nuys corridor wants to go to West LA or Mid City, they have the option of transfer to Sepulveda line. We just need Metro to do the transfer station right... up to this point, Metro has failed at every single transfer station in the system - they are all less than optimal.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 27, 2019 14:40:29 GMT -8
We are just beating a dead horse. The Van Nuys line is a local circulator to facilitate bus transfers. It was designed that way, and it will be build that way. If anyone on the Van Nuys corridor wants to go to West LA or Mid City, they have the option of transfer to Sepulveda line. We just need Metro to do the transfer station right... up to this point, Metro has failed at every single transfer station in the system - they are all less than optimal. The transfer station at 7th Street / Metro Center that connects Blue/Expo/Red/Purple is really good. Get off one train and just walk up or down the stairs to next train. Blue/Green is really good and simple too. Union Station with Gold/Red/Purple is not great. However, I've seen train stations in Europe where you walk 1/8 to 1/6 mile just to transfer to next train. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 27, 2019 14:50:54 GMT -8
However, I've seen train stations in Europe where you walk 1/8 to 1/6 mile just to transfer to next train. I remember some stations in Paris which are kind of hilarious, the way they tried to force three or four stations to be "one" transfer station, by connecting them with a series of long tunnels and bridges. |
|
|
|
Post by ngallery on Jun 27, 2019 15:46:37 GMT -8
However, I've seen train stations in Europe where you walk 1/8 to 1/6 mile just to transfer to next train. I remember some stations in Paris which are kind of hilarious, the way they tried to force three or four stations to be "one" transfer station, by connecting them with a series of long tunnels and bridges. Certainly better than the original link between the Red and Orange lines or the planned link between the Expo and Crenshaw lines. These transfers looks more like a surprise to Metro than a plan. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 27, 2019 22:51:03 GMT -8
We are just beating a dead horse. The Van Nuys line is a local circulator to facilitate bus transfers. It was designed that way, and it will be build that way. If anyone on the Van Nuys corridor wants to go to West LA or Mid City, they have the option of transfer to Sepulveda line. We just need Metro to do the transfer station right... up to this point, Metro has failed at every single transfer station in the system - they are all less than optimal. The best option would be a cross-platform transfer, but I doubt they would spend the money on such a thing. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-platform_interchangeCross-platform transfers would mean ESFV South and Sepulveda South are on the same platform, so you would just cross over from the ESFV Line to continue the journey south, and same with going in the northwards direction. They have this rare type of transfer design in some places. I think this would require undergrounding an ESFV terminal station or pulling a Sepulveda station above-ground, and probably more costly designs and construction costs, which I don’t see them pursuing. Not sure if it would even be worth it to a P3 partner on either line, though I guess it would be up to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jun 28, 2019 16:06:10 GMT -8
The silver lining is that Metro extended the Sepulveda rail corridor up to the Metrolink ROW. Let's be thankful for that.
But yeah, there's no other logical route for a northern extension other than the one the Van Nuys streetcar will follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 15, 2019 3:56:12 GMT -8
The Metro board will consider pursuing pre-development agreements for the Sepulveda line. It means that a construction contractor is part of the planning process and has the right to offer a construction bid earlier in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 31, 2019 15:21:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 26, 2020 15:09:04 GMT -8
Today's Daily Breeze newspaper 08/26/2020 has a article about the valley westside line. A meeting on Thursday will discuss a Public Private partnership.
|
|
