LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

I can’t wait to see more of this!

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Dumb. They could just build 2-3 subway stations and have BRT serve first/last mile.

Agreed. What really needs to happen is a redefinition of the project. Call everything from the orange line or the Van Nuts Metrolink south part of the Sepulveda line, and build it as grade separated HSR. Don't bother with any rail north of there unless it can be done right.

[caligrad]

Is elevated HRT more expensive than a subway ? or are the costs the same? I feel elevated HRT, not the steel girder kind in Chicago an NYC, but the reinforced concrete railway should be less expensive? I know people say LA doesnt have a thing aginst EL trains but if it costs more to dig, why not consider the alternative immidiately? if done correctly like in some countries, they can pump out viaduct pieces quickly and effieciently off site and truck them in. Downtown, anything around the wilshire corridor and the west side should remain subway but i feel everywhere else should either be LRT or elevated HRT.

[saybanana]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Is elevated HRT more expensive than a subway ? or are the costs the same? I feel elevated HRT, not the steel girder kind in Chicago an NYC, but the reinforced concrete railway should be less expensive? I know people say LA doesnt have a thing aginst EL trains but if it costs more to dig, why not consider the alternative immidiately? if done correctly like in some countries, they can pump out viaduct pieces quickly and effieciently off site and truck them in. Downtown, anything around the wilshire corridor and the west side should remain subway but i feel everywhere else should either be LRT or elevated HRT.

Here is an article I found that shows costs or current/recent large transit projects.
https://www.citylab.com/transportati...the-us/551408/

Most places are doing subway so that is easy to see what different projects cost.
LA's purple line and Regional connector subway costs about $900M/mile.
Honolulu's HART Elevated Rail is $500M/mile (though it went through suburbs/ROWs, so I dont know what will it cost when it goes through Downtown and more urban parts of the city) but let's say it is $500M.

The ESFV is $1.3B for over 9miles = $125M/mile for surface LRT.
The finished Pasadena to Azusa Gold Line was $741 for 11.5 miles = $65M/mile
The Crenshaw line U/C is $1.77B for 8.5 miles but it is a mix of aerial, street at grade, and subway so hard to calculate it. But a 1.6mile at-grade from Expo Crenshaw station to Leimert Park was changed to subway (with Federal Loan) which changed the $1.3 to $1.77B. I think those figures are right.

For Rail.
So running light rail at grade is the cheapest option which I think is better for suburban to suburban areas where it isn't as dense and maybe car driving is more preferable to public transit. $100-$125/mile.
Subways are the most expensive in American cities at $600-900+ per mile.
Elevated Rail (only example is Honolulu) at $500M/mile.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Is elevated HRT more expensive than a subway ? or are the costs the same? I feel elevated HRT, not the steel girder kind in Chicago an NYC, but the reinforced concrete railway should be less expensive? I know people say LA doesnt have a thing aginst EL trains but if it costs more to dig, why not consider the alternative immidiately? if done correctly like in some countries, they can pump out viaduct pieces quickly and effieciently off site and truck them in. Downtown, anything around the wilshire corridor and the west side should remain subway but i feel everywhere else should either be LRT or elevated HRT.

I remember a long time ago someone offering the simple rule of thumb that elevated is 2x what surface costs, and subway is 3x the cost of surface.

The structure that supports heavy rail obviously needs to be more robust than one that supports light rail, but I don't know why HRT subway is more expensive than LRT subway, other than the use of a somewhat wider bore.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I remember a long time ago someone offering the simple rule of thumb that elevated is 2x what surface costs, and subway is 3x the cost of surface.

The structure that supports heavy rail obviously needs to be more robust than one that supports light rail, but I don't know why HRT subway is more expensive than LRT subway, other than the use of a somewhat wider bore.

Longer trains means bigger underground station boxes and more money

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I can’t wait to see more of this!

Where is that? Do you have an article or something?

[Quixote]

^ Flower Street just past the 10 underpass.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by saybanana

Here is an article I found that shows costs or current/recent large transit projects.
https://www.citylab.com/transportati...the-us/551408/

Most places are doing subway so that is easy to see what different projects cost.
LA's purple line and Regional connector subway costs about $900M/mile.
Honolulu's HART Elevated Rail is $500M/mile (though it went through suburbs/ROWs, so I dont know what will it cost when it goes through Downtown and more urban parts of the city) but let's say it is $500M.

The ESFV is $1.3B for over 9miles = $125M/mile for surface LRT.
The finished Pasadena to Azusa Gold Line was $741 for 11.5 miles = $65M/mile
The Crenshaw line U/C is $1.77B for 8.5 miles but it is a mix of aerial, street at grade, and subway so hard to calculate it. But a 1.6mile at-grade from Expo Crenshaw station to Leimert Park was changed to subway (with Federal Loan) which changed the $1.3 to $1.77B. I think those figures are right.

For Rail.
So running light rail at grade is the cheapest option which I think is better for suburban to suburban areas where it isn't as dense and maybe car driving is more preferable to public transit. $100-$125/mile.
Subways are the most expensive in American cities at $600-900+ per mile.
Elevated Rail (only example is Honolulu) at $500M/mile.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I remember a long time ago someone offering the simple rule of thumb that elevated is 2x what surface costs, and subway is 3x the cost of surface.

The structure that supports heavy rail obviously needs to be more robust than one that supports light rail, but I don't know why HRT subway is more expensive than LRT subway, other than the use of a somewhat wider bore.

It's this math that inevitably leads to building at-grade LRT. The Expo line spent $2.5 billion to build 13.9 miles of track, while the Purple line is going to spend $7.8 billion to build just 9.1 miles of track (~4.7x more per mile). And yet the Expo line has currently has a crush capacity of 6,540 riders per hour (218 riders per car with 3 car trains and 6 minute headways), and the Red line 10,836 (301 riders per car with 6 car trains and 10 minute headways). HRT has 5x the cost for only 1.6x the capacity (or LRT has 20% the cost for 60% of the capacity if you prefer). Even if you ran trains with 5 minute headways, as Metro does where the Purple and Red lines intersect, HRT still isn't as cost effective as at-grade LRT.

While HRT undoubtedly provides a nicer rider experience, is more reliable, and encourages more people to utilize it Metro is required by law and its own regulations to make choices based upon this math, the system that does the most and costs the least.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The structure that supports heavy rail obviously needs to be more robust than one that supports light rail, but I don't know why HRT subway is more expensive than LRT subway, other than the use of a somewhat wider bore.

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Longer trains means bigger underground station boxes and more money

Depends on the city, the Chicago L, New York's IRT lines and the Paris Metro are considered HRT, but their loading gauge is virtually the same as most American LRT systems, from the height to the width to the car length. The only difference is in overall train length, obviously the trains on those HRT systems are longer and therefore the stations are also longer. The sheer volume of passengers who could exit an HRT train also requires wider platforms and more/wider vertical egress.

Even weight is not necessarily a huge difference, LA's "light rail" P2000 cars weigh 98,000lbs per articulated pair while Chicago's "heavy rail" 5000-series cars weigh 114,000lbs, a difference that can be mostly attributed to the slightly longer cars used in Chicago.

When you factor in the safety margins used in engineering, it's pretty safe to say that LA's elevated structures on the light rail system could easily support the weight of most heavy rail subway trains, although trains used for mainline railroad service in the US are far heavier due to the FRA's strict crashworthiness requirements that mandate the use of many tons more steel.

TL;DR there is a whole continuum from light rail to heavy rail, and no clear dividing line about how to classify systems.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

While HRT undoubtedly provides a nicer rider experience, is more reliable, and encourages more people to utilize it Metro is required by law and its own regulations to make choices based upon this math, the system that does the most and costs the least.

That’s the problem. We don’t need a bargain. This isn’t a two week thing. This is building a significant piece of infrastructure that will define the living habits of millions of people for decades to come. It’s worth it to spend more for something better.

Most of the Metro system IMO requires Subway to be effective, some exceptions are out there like Green line southern extension, the Southern part of the West Santa Ana Branch, Light rail East of Pasadena.

[edale]

As great as it is to plan more metro lines on a map, we also need to really look at upgrading the service we do have. As someone who uses both LADOT and Metro service to commute daily, I can attest that service is pretty pathetic for a major metro system. Red Line rush hour headways are...12 minutes? That is abysmal. Outside of rush hour, headways sometimes top 20 minutes! And the Dash buses, which act as critical 'first and last mile' connectors to our rail lines have very limited hours. The Dash bus I rely on in Los Feliz to take me to the Vermont/Sunset station stops running at 7 PM (last pickup at the Metro at 6:40) and doesn't even have weekend service at all! Pretty hard to have a usable rail system if many people can't access it or depend on it regularly. Lines on a map are great, and I truly can't wait for the Purple Line extension to Fairfax to open, but we also need to make sure the transit we do have is functional for all people, not just those without any options.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by edale

As great as it is to plan more metro lines on a map, we also need to really look at upgrading the service we do have. As someone who uses both LADOT and Metro service to commute daily, I can attest that service is pretty pathetic for a major metro system. Red Line rush hour headways are...12 minutes? That is abysmal. Outside of rush hour, headways sometimes top 20 minutes! And the Dash buses, which act as critical 'first and last mile' connectors to our rail lines have very limited hours. The Dash bus I rely on in Los Feliz to take me to the Vermont/Sunset station stops running at 7 PM (last pickup at the Metro at 6:40) and doesn't even have weekend service at all! Pretty hard to have a usable rail system if many people can't access it or depend on it regularly. Lines on a map are great, and I truly can't wait for the Purple Line extension to Fairfax to open, but we also need to make sure the transit we do have is functional for all people, not just those without any options.

It’s not worth running it full time if the possible services are so limited that potential ridership is limited. If you build out a fast, efficient system that covers the county reasonably well and the hot spots (DT, Wilshire, Westside, Beaches, Hollywood, sporting venues, airports) VERY well then it’s worth expanding hours and headway’s cause potential ridership is there.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by edale

As great as it is to plan more metro lines on a map, we also need to really look at upgrading the service we do have. As someone who uses both LADOT and Metro service to commute daily, I can attest that service is pretty pathetic for a major metro system. Red Line rush hour headways are...12 minutes? That is abysmal. Outside of rush hour, headways sometimes top 20 minutes! And the Dash buses, which act as critical 'first and last mile' connectors to our rail lines have very limited hours. The Dash bus I rely on in Los Feliz to take me to the Vermont/Sunset station stops running at 7 PM (last pickup at the Metro at 6:40) and doesn't even have weekend service at all! Pretty hard to have a usable rail system if many people can't access it or depend on it regularly. Lines on a map are great, and I truly can't wait for the Purple Line extension to Fairfax to open, but we also need to make sure the transit we do have is functional for all people, not just those without any options.

Part of this is due to the turnback facility. They are upgrading it so trains can be turned around with four minute headways.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Depends on the city, the Chicago L, New York's IRT lines and the Paris Metro are considered HRT, but their loading gauge is virtually the same as most American LRT systems, from the height to the width to the car length. The only difference is in overall train length, obviously the trains on those HRT systems are longer and therefore the stations are also longer. The sheer volume of passengers who could exit an HRT train also requires wider platforms and more/wider vertical egress.

TL;DR there is a whole continuum from light rail to heavy rail, and no clear dividing line about how to classify systems.

If you have full grade separation, long platforms and adequate width platforms then you have heavy rail capacity because you have high frequency of service.

In Los Angeles; 3 car Light Rail Train (LRT) is about 270 feet in length, 4 car LRT (that I know Metro Board Member John Fasana has been pushing) would be 360 feet.

The LA Heavy Rail trains on Red/Purple lines are in 4 car train is 300 feet in length, 6 cars the max is 450 feet in length.

Most heavy rail systems around the world fall between the 300 to 500' train length. NYC, Washington Metro and BART are the exceptions to the rule with 600' long trains.



An example, the Canada Line in Vancouver with 150' long platforms is considered heavy rail because it is automated, runs at high frequencies and is completely grade separated despite shorter train lengths.

So for our heavy rail capacity we should be pushing for what ever alignment to be completely grade separated and have most passenger capacity throughput in the design of the stations and platforms.

Such as wider platforms, consider at interchange stations a "spanish platform" approach where there are three platforms; 2 side platforms and a center one. The center platform is for exiting only and the side platforms are for boarding only.

[Quixote]

I think a good compromise between HRT/LRT would be to have LRT rolling stock of the same width and floor height as our HRT cars along with the ability to run on both third rail and overhead wires. When the need for full grade-separation arises, the ESFV gets converted to subway powered by third rail.

[Quixote]

And on the HRT/LRT debate, it's true that what constitutes "heavy rail" can vary considerably. Light metros like those found in Vancouver and Copenhagen are considered rapid transit by virtue of them being fully grade-separated and powered by third rail. But then you have a system like Manila LRT's Lines 1 and 3 which has much greater capacity but uses traditional LRT technology.

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

And yet the Expo line has currently has a crush capacity of 6,540 riders per hour (218 riders per car with 3 car trains and 6 minute headways), and the Red line 10,836 (301 riders per car with 6 car trains and 10 minute headways). HRT has 5x the cost for only 1.6x the capacity (or LRT has 20% the cost for 60% of the capacity if you prefer).

That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

As Illithid Dude already mentioned, the turnback facility being constructed as part of the Purple Line extension will allow for 4-minute headways on both the Purple and Red Lines--the interlined trunk having trains come every 2 minutes. Hell, if it wasn't for the interlining, you could have 2-minute headways because the full grade-separation allows it.

So HRT has a maximum capacity of 54,180 riders per hour (over 8x that of LRT). For 4-minute headways, it's 27,090 riders per hour.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And on the HRT/LRT debate, it's true that what constitutes "heavy rail" can vary considerably. Light metros like those found in Vancouver and Copenhagen are considered rapid transit by virtue of them being fully grade-separated and powered by third rail. But then you have a system like Manila LRT's Lines 1 and 3 which has much greater capacity but uses traditional LRT technology.

Yeah, basically. Weight is, ironically, the least important factor in categorizing a rail system as light rail vs heavy rail. It has far more to do with operating characteristics.

Didn't know about Manila, wow that's a monster LRT train. Certainly if LA's platforms could be extended to that length, there would be no difference in capacity vs HRT, but obviously many (not all) at-grade sections of the system would need to be grade separated. Certainly most of the at-grade stations would no longer function.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

Most heavy rail systems around the world fall between the 300 to 500' train length. NYC, Washington Metro and BART are the exceptions to the rule with 600' long trains.

Most heavy rail rapid transit trains are wider than light rail trains and so have a higher standing crush capacity. Also, the capacity of the same train in Asia has a higher crush capacity because Americans are big and fat.