|
|
Post by numble on Sept 10, 2020 16:11:34 GMT -8
This project has been quietly delayed for awhile. The final EIR is still not done. They gave some updates on September 9, 2020. Issues with sharing the corridor with the road, sidewalk and underground utilities. They expect to start construction as early as 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 14, 2020 12:41:09 GMT -8
delaying it til after the election means they want to combine it with the HRT project on the same corridor. all things involving utilities are 1000% opaque to the public, experts and even people involved in transit, so they can easily enact this excuse without really being questioned about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 14, 2020 13:42:52 GMT -8
delaying it til after the election means they want to combine it with the HRT project on the same corridor. all things involving utilities are 1000% opaque to the public, experts and even people involved in transit, so they can easily enact this excuse without really being questioned about it. I do now wonder if the EIR has been delayed so long because they wanted to see if any of the P3 proposals include the ESFV corridor. It has been delayed a very long time. The Metro board chose the route and mode in June 2018. At that time, they estimated the final EIR would be completed 6 months later, in January 2019. It is now over 2 years later and they still haven't gotten the final EIR completed. Here is a presentation from June 2018 with that timeline. media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/esfv_presentation__2018-0619.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 14, 2020 17:09:10 GMT -8
It looks like the EIR will be available at the beginning of next month.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 25, 2020 21:11:38 GMT -8
This project has been quietly delayed for awhile. The final EIR is still not done. They gave some updates on September 9, 2020. Issues with sharing the corridor with the road, sidewalk and underground utilities. They expect to start construction as early as 2022. I think that you're right that they wanted to wait and see what happened with the the Sepulveda Pass project. These 2 lines go to together like hand and glove. Plus the ESV project still has some money to make up. The intersection of Van Nuys Blvd and Roscoe Blvd is a nightmare, especially with a bridge as they were proposing.
I like the scoops that you have had on HNTB and the Metro Project Manager singing the praises of cut and cover in Vancouver: Cut and cover is exactly what they should do at Van Nuys and Roscoe. That is the single busiest intersection for cars on the route I'm guessing and a huge station (not the busiest) for riders.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 2, 2020 10:35:19 GMT -8
Final EIR is out:
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 8, 2020 16:27:59 GMT -8
The IOS is understandable because of the ridership at the orange line, but the opposite IOS from San Fernando to the maintenance facility at the metro link station would be superior from every other conceivable metric.
If the IOS did not include the overlap section with the sepulveda line metro could construct a shallow four track cut and cover (with simultaneous utility relocation) that would allow both lines to use that overlap section below grade and the ESFV could still have all the same stations while sepulveda has bypass tracks.
It would require sepulveda line to do an MOS as well so it’s subterranean funding could be directed to the project (since esfv can’t afford it), but it would also open the possibility of sepulveda access at the maintenance facility (at least temporarily if one maintenance facility can’t serve two vehicle types.
It would also prevent the massive ridership disruptions from cutting and digging out the EsFV at the metro links station and would avoid six years of bus bridges on the esfv while the Sepulveda line builds a typical billion dollar massive station palace underneath the ESFV.
It would also prevent doing a second and more expensive, more time consuming and vastly more complex set of utility relocations for the sepulveda line which will be such a Clusferf**k that second round of utility relocation will delay the sepulveda lines opening by at least three years.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 23, 2020 16:23:13 GMT -8
The IOS is understandable because of the ridership at the orange line, but the opposite IOS from San Fernando to the maintenance facility at the metro link station would be superior from every other conceivable metric. If the IOS did not include the overlap section with the sepulveda line metro could construct a shallow four track cut and cover (with simultaneous utility relocation) that would allow both lines to use that overlap section below grade and the ESFV could still have all the same stations while sepulveda has bypass tracks. It would require sepulveda line to do an MOS as well so it’s subterranean funding could be directed to the project (since esfv can’t afford it), but it would also open the possibility of sepulveda access at the maintenance facility (at least temporarily if one maintenance facility can’t serve two vehicle types. It would also prevent the massive ridership disruptions from cutting and digging out the EsFV at the metro links station and would avoid six years of bus bridges on the esfv while the Sepulveda line builds a typical billion dollar massive station palace underneath the ESFV. It would also prevent doing a second and more expensive, more time consuming and vastly more complex set of utility relocations for the sepulveda line which will be such a Clusferf**k that second round of utility relocation will delay the sepulveda lines opening by at least three years. I agree with you if it assumes that the Sepulveda Pass Corridor will be under Van Nuys Blvd. However Metro's own report basically threw alternatives like that out of the window because if they did that, they might as well continue the corridor as a high capacity grade separated LRT. With a P3 on the table for Sepulveda Pass I think this fact will virtually eliminate options that have to operate under Van Nuys Blvd at the same time as the ESFV LRT. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 28, 2020 11:28:26 GMT -8
There’s also NePA considerations at play. We are required to build station palaces that cost half a billion dollar because fire codes functionally require a mezzanine for allegedly speedier emergency evacuation.
This results in the insane conclusion that a deeper station is better and faster and safer to evacuate from a 100 foot deep station than a shallower 30 foot deep cut and cover station because crowds can spend more time and space whilst evacuating because they will pause to mill about and mingle on a presumably not on fire mezzanine level.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 10, 2020 9:22:01 GMT -8
This project has been quietly delayed for awhile. The final EIR is still not done. It is now done: the Final EIR has been approved by the Metro Board. The first segment will be the portion on Van Nuys Blvd. It will begin pre-construction next year. A second segment, along San Fernando Road connecting to MetroLink, will be built later (when funds become available). |
|
|
|
Post by Mike B on Dec 16, 2020 12:12:11 GMT -8
The IOS is understandable because of the ridership at the orange line, but the opposite IOS from San Fernando to the maintenance facility at the metro link station would be superior from every other conceivable metric. If the IOS did not include the overlap section with the sepulveda line metro could construct a shallow four track cut and cover (with simultaneous utility relocation) that would allow both lines to use that overlap section below grade and the ESFV could still have all the same stations while sepulveda has bypass tracks. It would require sepulveda line to do an MOS as well so it’s subterranean funding could be directed to the project (since esfv can’t afford it), but it would also open the possibility of sepulveda access at the maintenance facility (at least temporarily if one maintenance facility can’t serve two vehicle types. It would also prevent the massive ridership disruptions from cutting and digging out the EsFV at the metro links station and would avoid six years of bus bridges on the esfv while the Sepulveda line builds a typical billion dollar massive station palace underneath the ESFV. It would also prevent doing a second and more expensive, more time consuming and vastly more complex set of utility relocations for the sepulveda line which will be such a Clusferf**k that second round of utility relocation will delay the sepulveda lines opening by at least three years. I agree with you if it assumes that the Sepulveda Pass Corridor will be under Van Nuys Blvd. However Metro's own report basically threw alternatives like that out of the window because if they did that, they might as well continue the corridor as a high capacity grade separated LRT. With a P3 on the table for Sepulveda Pass I think this fact will virtually eliminate options that have to operate under Van Nuys Blvd at the same time as the ESFV LRT. This is so infuriating as a taxpayer and transit watcher. This isn't rocket science, and yet Metro continually makes decisions with little regard for long-term effectiveness, efficiency of spending tax payer dollars to get there and transparency around it all. If they continually deliver late and below expectations, they will find themselves with nothing to deliver at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 29, 2021 16:58:24 GMT -8
Metro is starting to meet with potential construction contractors for the ESFV line. The timeline for bids, contract award and construction is starting to become firmer/clearer.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 29, 2021 19:50:35 GMT -8
Metro is starting to meet with potential construction contractors for the ESFV line. The timeline for bids, contract award and construction is starting to become firmer/clearer. Every time I see anything about this line it infuriates me. In 2021 the idea of median running non-grade supersets transit should be a thing of the past. And again - for stations to be placed seemingly every block it runs as a glorified streetcar which is really what this should be if they were going to go the half ass route. To me there are a number of different ways you could have done this. These are just some of them....
• A streetcar setup. That begins at universal city and runs up from there along Ventura and up Van Nuys all the way to San Fernando.
• This idea is unique and you guys may find legitimate reasons to pick it apart but this line as part of the Sepulveda line as a hybrid local to the Sepulveda HRT express. minimalist Underground LRT stations along the cooridor.
• A simple elevated LRT. I’m not sure the business or residents of the area wouldn’t put up a massive fight but this would be a better option.
• Or run LRT along the median but totally separated with underpasses or overpasses for major intersections.
At the end of the day maybe there are others but you can’t stick with what they ended up with. Streetcar, Grade separated LRT, LRT Subway, HRT local with Sepulveda, LRT local with HRT Sepulveda, Streetcar, LRT to connect with Ventura BLVD line to make longer line, LRT to connect with SGV-SFV LRT line. So many ideas but this line not grade separated, with stations every single block almost. That is just a 6.7 mile line - it’s just a line to nowhere and it’s a waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 30, 2021 11:55:47 GMT -8
The stations are every half mile, at major bus corridors and sensibly align with the street grid. It's not meant to be an express for people from Santa Clarita and Palmdale to bypass the entire region as fast as possible, that kind of express bypass is what the 405 interstate is for. This train is for the people living in the area and using transit in the area, not pearl-clutching commuters.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 30, 2021 13:44:00 GMT -8
Metro is starting to meet with potential construction contractors for the ESFV line. The timeline for bids, contract award and construction is starting to become firmer/clearer. Every time I see anything about this line it infuriates me. In 2021 the idea of median running non-grade supersets transit should be a thing of the past. And again - for stations to be placed seemingly every block it runs as a glorified streetcar which is really what this should be if they were going to go the half ass route. To me there are a number of different ways you could have done this. These are just some of them....
• A streetcar setup. That begins at universal city and runs up from there along Ventura and up Van Nuys all the way to San Fernando.
• This idea is unique and you guys may find legitimate reasons to pick it apart but this line as part of the Sepulveda line as a hybrid local to the Sepulveda HRT express. minimalist Underground LRT stations along the cooridor.
• A simple elevated LRT. I’m not sure the business or residents of the area wouldn’t put up a massive fight but this would be a better option.
• Or run LRT along the median but totally separated with underpasses or overpasses for major intersections.
At the end of the day maybe there are others but you can’t stick with what they ended up with. Streetcar, Grade separated LRT, LRT Subway, HRT local with Sepulveda, LRT local with HRT Sepulveda, Streetcar, LRT to connect with Ventura BLVD line to make longer line, LRT to connect with SGV-SFV LRT line. So many ideas but this line not grade separated, with stations every single block almost. That is just a 6.7 mile line - it’s just a line to nowhere and it’s a waste of money. The Sepulveda line studies show that with the Sepulveda Line in place, the ESFV line at 5-minute frequencies gets a lot of ridership, and gets to around 80% capacity at some points (Slide 18)--since Metro hasn't been running light rail at 5 minute headways (they usually do 6, 10, 12 or longer headways), the train may be even more busy when actually in service. Not bad for "a line to nowhere" that is a "waste of money". media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Presentation_sepulveda_transit_corridor_2019-01.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jun 30, 2021 16:33:23 GMT -8
The stations are every half mile, at major bus corridors and sensibly align with the street grid. It's not meant to be an express for people from Santa Clarita and Palmdale to bypass the entire region as fast as possible, that kind of express bypass is what the 405 interstate is for. This train is for the people living in the area and using transit in the area, not pearl-clutching commuters. Based on my own experience riding the 233 for fun several years ago, the Van Nuys corridor is definitely busy with local short trips. This is reflected with that fact the 233 comes every 12 minutes using 60 BRTs(at least when I rode it), while the 761 only comes every 20 minutes. Completely anecdotal, but that eperience is why the ESFV LRT having a lot of relatively closely-spaced stops made sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 18, 2022 18:39:03 GMT -8
The latest update on ESFV: The plan is to award the construction contract in August, and open for service around June 2028. The contract hasn’t yet been released for bidding, so that contract award timeline seems unlikely. They usually take a long time to figure out who to award a billion+ contract to.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 19, 2022 0:11:38 GMT -8
I also noticed that the estimated project cost is $2.8 billion for the ESFV project.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 19, 2022 10:29:47 GMT -8
This is such a knife to the gut. What's the point of doubling infrastructure money if the costs just double with it? I know supply-chain issues are real, but I feel like these contractors have learned too well from defense contractors. With so few of them able to take on these megaprojects, it becomes akin to price-fixing the way they inflate their bids and introduce schedule creep. There has got to be some solution for a state-owned contractor to handle megaprojects without profit-motive driving costs to such unbelievable heights.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 19, 2022 11:30:53 GMT -8
This is such a knife to the gut. What's the point of doubling infrastructure money if the costs just double with it? I know supply-chain issues are real, but I feel like these contractors have learned too well from defense contractors. With so few of them able to take on these megaprojects, it becomes akin to price-fixing the way they inflate their bids and introduce schedule creep. There has got to be some solution for a state-owned contractor to handle megaprojects without profit-motive driving costs to such unbelievable heights. Inflation is a real problem. So is the supply chain, workers out with COVID and workers not wanting to work with many government benefits and payments available. Costs are soaring across the economy, but especially in construction. A government owned contractor would be a disaster and certainly not any cheaper and have the same issues. Metro is incapable of managing so many projects at once and that is just managing the contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 19, 2022 17:04:43 GMT -8
This is such a knife to the gut. What's the point of doubling infrastructure money if the costs just double with it? I know supply-chain issues are real, but I feel like these contractors have learned too well from defense contractors. With so few of them able to take on these megaprojects, it becomes akin to price-fixing the way they inflate their bids and introduce schedule creep. There has got to be some solution for a state-owned contractor to handle megaprojects without profit-motive driving costs to such unbelievable heights. Replace "megaprojects" with "healthcare"... same results. There is a reason why very few countries build transit projects or run healthcare system the way we do it in the US. The economic model we have in the US is based on rent seeking, not delivery public good. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 19, 2022 19:10:42 GMT -8
This is such a knife to the gut. What's the point of doubling infrastructure money if the costs just double with it? I know supply-chain issues are real, but I feel like these contractors have learned too well from defense contractors. With so few of them able to take on these megaprojects, it becomes akin to price-fixing the way they inflate their bids and introduce schedule creep. There has got to be some solution for a state-owned contractor to handle megaprojects without profit-motive driving costs to such unbelievable heights. Just looking at schedule delays for things that are within Metro's control, I don't have confidence that a state-owned contractor would solve cost or schedule issues. For example, the Metro board told staff in 2019 to start the environmental review process for the Vermont corridor, and they still have not started it now that we're in 2022. The Draft EIR for the ESFV project was finished in 2017, and they still haven't put a construction contract out to bid. As long as there is a hot construction/transit market in the U.S. (and the 3 stimulus bills and infrastructure bill probably help there) government infrastructure employees have an incentive to take their time and not rush things, get their government pension vested, and then go to the private sector and make more money based on their government experience. At least with private contractors, it seems very likely that Metro will be suing some of them for their delays after the project is done. There is no disincentive for Metro staff to add an extra couple of months for every planning stage, or delaying putting contracts out for bid because they need to spend another 2-6 months writing the contract. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 28, 2022 17:05:47 GMT -8
The Federal Department of Transportation recommends funding the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor under the “Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program” (basically an old program that never got off the ground and has leftover funds). Metro is requesting $702m in total for multiple years, the DOT recommends paying $250m in the first year. This 6.7 mile at-grade light rail project has an estimated $2.8 billion cost. Measure M estimated it would cost $1.3 billion.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Apr 20, 2022 7:38:54 GMT -8
Per KRLA 870 radio. Yesterday 04/19/2022 some Federal money came for the east SFV light rail project. So it seems the project is now a go.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 20, 2022 11:48:52 GMT -8
Per KRLA 870 radio. Yesterday 04/19/2022 some Federal money came for the east SFV light rail project. So it seems the project is now a go. It was only $5M for a project that will cost well into the billions and is already well over the initial cost projections. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 22, 2022 10:29:10 GMT -8
Put me in the camp rooting against this project.
I hope a lack of funding sends them to the drawing board.
This line should be an extension of the future orange line or an extension of the Sepulveda line. Or really anything but what they planned
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Apr 26, 2022 9:22:27 GMT -8
For better or worse the East SFV is being planned as a local line limited the the Valley, The Sepulveda line is the regional express with limited stops in the valley.
Hopefully once the Sepulveda line is built it gets extended to the Sylmar station for a link to the antelope valley Metrolink line.
Metro is really bad at linking the two systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 11, 2022 10:56:41 GMT -8
The FTA has announced it intends to fund up to 25% of the East SFV light rail project, up to $908.75 million, based on a cost estimate of $3.635 billion. Maybe the very high cost estimate is because Metro is including Phase 2 in the estimate and also throwing in some other related costs (G Line and/or Metrolink improvements), to pump up the amount of money they can get. Link to tweet. |
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on May 16, 2022 8:02:30 GMT -8
I saw a comment on Urbanize LA that got me thinking. Most major speed limits in the valley are posted to 40 to 45 mph.
Would it make sense for metro to consider running this line at those limits in lieu of it's usual 35 mph for street running light rail.
I don't see the slightly higher speed being a too much of safety hazard considering how close the station spacing is on this line.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 17, 2022 8:48:27 GMT -8
I saw a comment on Urbanize LA that got me thinking. Most major speed limits in the valley are posted to 40 to 45 mph. Would it make sense for metro to consider running this line at those limits in lieu of it's usual 35 mph for street running light rail. I don't see the slightly higher speed being a too much of safety hazard considering how close the station spacing is on this line. In July 2021, Metro staff reported that they were studying how to increase the speeds on the current street-running light rail lines, though I don't think there has been any update on that, and it sounded like they were not looking at increasing speeds in the street-running segments: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5028035&GUID=DCFE91BA-74A0-4B1F-B858-CF62793128B0&Options=ID%7CText%7C&FullText=1 |
|
