LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[destroycreate]

Does anyone know an estimated completion date for the METRO line going from the SF Valley to the West Side?

[numble]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Does anyone know an estimated completion date for the METRO line going from the SF Valley to the West Side?

Under Measure M, the plan was to complete it by 2033-2036. They are trying to accelerate it to open by 2028 by finding a private partner.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by numble

Under Measure M, the plan was to complete it by 2033-2036. They are trying to accelerate it to open by 2028 by finding a private partner.

Omg 2028 would be amazing. Seems a little ambitious, but a girl can dream.

[numble]

Reposting my findings from another forum:

In 2012, Metro actually did a comprehensive study with estimated boardings and timings for HRT and LRT between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX, with only 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard (Orange Line):
http://media.metro.net/projects_stud...20Concepts.pdf

The light rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-11, page 31. The heavy rail boardings and timings are on Table 4-14, page 35. The concepts followed the same routes as the 14-station locally preferred alternative, but with fewer stations. The maps for the concepts are on page 64.

The concepts considered a tunnel for the Sepulveda pass, but operating at-grade north of the pass.

It was an estimated 27.5 minutes for the 5 stations between Sylmar and Oxnard. The 14-station locally preferred alternative has an estimated time of 31 minutes end-to-end. Adding 9 stations does not seem to make it too much slower, only 3.5 minutes slower. The heavy rail alternative was 20.4 minutes, though--so a savings of 10.6 minutes.

In terms of boardings, if you treat the 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard as its own line, it has ~32,636 estimated daily boardings for the light-rail line (~39,024 estimated for the heavy rail alternative) compared to the estimated 47,400 boardings for the 14-station locally preferred alternative. The number likely would be less since the estimated boardings for a "5 station line" are not actually there, it is based on estimates for a Sylmar to LAX line, and include the network effects of a longer line and also include southbound boardings at Oxnard (there are no southbound boardings at Oxnard included in the estimates for the ESFV line, since it is the terminus station). All in all, it does not seem to be the case that having 9 more stations would reduce the number of boardings, but rather increase the number of boardings.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by numble

In terms of boardings, if you treat the 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard as its own line, it has ~32,636 estimated daily boardings for the light-rail line (~39,024 estimated for the heavy rail alternative) compared to the estimated 47,400 boardings for the 14-station locally preferred alternative. The number likely would be less since the estimated boardings for a "5 station line" are not actually there, it is based on estimates for a Sylmar to LAX line, and include the network effects of a longer line and also include southbound boardings at Oxnard (there are no southbound boardings at Oxnard included in the estimates for the ESFV line, since it is the terminus station). All in all, it does not seem to be the case that having 9 more stations would reduce the number of boardings, but rather increase the number of boardings.

And that makes sense because when coupled with the no stops going through the pass in either direction you are picking up a greater catchment of riders to go through the pass starting in the Valley where there is the need to the Westside where those riders will be linked to the activity centers on the line or via one transfer to either Expo to Santa Monica or Culver City or Purple Line to Century City and Beverly Hills.

[LineDrive]

Wait are you guys actually trying to say that 14 stations is the better call?

14 stations that’s not grade seperated ...

In life you get what you pay for and a line that costs $1.3B is really cheap.
There’s a reason for that because it’s a half assed plan.

[numble]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

Wait are you guys actually trying to say that 14 stations is the better call?

14 stations that’s not grade seperated ...

In life you get what you pay for and a line that costs $1.3B is really cheap.
There’s a reason for that because it’s a half assed plan.

If Option A says there will be 25,000-32,636 riders and takes 27.5 minutes, and Option B says there will be 47,400 riders and takes 31 minutes, which option do you think is the better call?

The location of the 14 stations currently have very good bus ridership, which is probably why their studies indicated it had more ridership potential than a 5 station option:

[jmecklenborg]

It would be interesting to see combined ridership data if there were to build two roughly parallel surface light rail lines that then merge into a tunnel under the mountains. This would help motivate a dense walkable zone over a 10+ square mile zone rather than just within 2-3 blocks of a single transit line.

The problem with publicly funded transit is that there is always pressure to create lines that give the appearance of equity on a map, even when the higher ROI might be over on one side of a city.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by numble

If Option A says there will be 25,000-32,636 riders and takes 27.5 minutes, and Option B says there will be 47,400 riders and takes 31 minutes, which option do you think is the better call?

The location of the 14 stations currently have very good bus ridership, which is probably why their studies indicated it had more ridership potential than a 5 station option:

First, these studies are likely flawed because they’re just looking into ridership on this line as everything else around it is consistited now. Compare a non grade separated 14 station turtle crawl line that dead ends at the orange line and compare it with connecting to a Sepulveda line.

Does anyone really think someone is going to take a line from the Valley to the west side of vice versa if the time difference from a car is minimal at best?

The point is supposed to be to make a ride exceptionally covienient and quick!

This line must be the same mode as Sepulveda and it must be EITHER reduced down to 7 stations OR if it could be grade separated subway/aerial then 10-12 stations wouldn’t be TOO bad.

Question - Is the plan to literally leave the Orange line as is around the time this line is done and the olympics come? The whole transit layout of the valley is going to be a MESS. The Red line is going to stop 4 miles east of this new line, the Orange line may or may not connect to both the Sepulveda and Van Nuys line... I mean the whole thing is a mess.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

First, these studies are likely flawed because they’re just looking into ridership on this line as everything else around it is consistited now...

Does anyone really think someone is going to take a line from the Valley to the west side of vice versa if the time difference from a car is minimal at best?

The point is supposed to be to make a ride exceptionally covienient and quick!

This line must be the same mode as Sepulveda and it must be EITHER reduced down to 7 stations OR if it could be grade separated subway/aerial then 10-12 stations wouldn’t be TOO bad.

Question - Is the plan to literally leave the Orange line as is around the time this line is done and the olympics come? The whole transit layout of the valley is going to be a MESS. The Red line is going to stop 4 miles east of this new line, the Orange line may or may not connect to both the Sepulveda and Van Nuys line... I mean the whole thing is a mess.

Yes, because most folks if they have to consistently go back and forth to work through the Sepulveda Pass at rush hour that normally takes 45 minutes between Van Nuys and Westwood by car will take the Metro that even with stops at UCLA and Ventura Blvd will take 15-20 minutes because of the tunnel through the pass.

The tunnel through the pass is the game changer that will make the trip compete with the car and worth while. Considering the transfer to other lines like the Purple and Expo because traffic on the Westside is so congested making that transfer and riding the train will still be time competative with the car at rush hour.

Most of the added stations are in the mid-section of the Valley from the Orange Line to Woodman where there are a solid grid of bus lines (Victory, Vanowen, Sherman Way, Metrolink, Roscoe) that would be great feeders to the corridor.

[numble]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

First, these studies are likely flawed because they’re just looking into ridership on this line as everything else around it is consistited now. Compare a non grade separated 14 station turtle crawl line that dead ends at the orange line and compare it with connecting to a Sepulveda line.

Does anyone really think someone is going to take a line from the Valley to the west side of vice versa if the time difference from a car is minimal at best?

The point is supposed to be to make a ride exceptionally covienient and quick!

This line must be the same mode as Sepulveda and it must be EITHER reduced down to 7 stations OR if it could be grade separated subway/aerial then 10-12 stations wouldn’t be TOO bad.

Question - Is the plan to literally leave the Orange line as is around the time this line is done and the olympics come? The whole transit layout of the valley is going to be a MESS. The Red line is going to stop 4 miles east of this new line, the Orange line may or may not connect to both the Sepulveda and Van Nuys line... I mean the whole thing is a mess.

The 2012 study with 5 stations from Sylmar to Oxnard did predict ridership based on the line going all the way through to LAX. It predicted 15,000 less riders and only saving 3.5 minutes compared to the 14 station line that dead ends at the Orange Line. I agree that the 47,400 ridership estimate for the 14-station line would likely increase with a connection or extension to Sepulveda.

The Measure M plan that the voters voted on requires Metro to start groundbreaking on the Measure M funded Orange Line improvements in 2019. So no, the Orange Line will not be as it currently is. It’s also likely the case that it would be fully electrified by then.

[NSMP]

I have no problem with the ridership study, but the travel time is likely incorrect. Metro always ignores the impacts of car traffic where they can. Inexcusable that they’re not planning it with full gated crossings

[joshuanickel]

Originally Posted by numble

The board approved the at-grade light rail alternative for the ESFV transit corridor.

They also awarded a $410 million tunneling contract for Phase 3 of the Purple Line extension to Tutor Perini, the same firm that has the Phase 2 contract. Their bid was 25% lower than other bids. They said they would save costs by sharing costs for Phase 2 and Phase 3, including sharing construction office spaces. I wonder if that means they intend to reuse the TBMs from Phase 2 instead of buying new TBMs. Metro won't spend any local money on Phase 3 (including this contract) until the Feds confirm that the local spending (before a New Starts grant is awarded) will not impact their New Starts application.

Metro has announced that they will be using a larger diameter TBM on phase 3 so that special trackwork will fit in the tunnel:

https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...ch=&FullText=1

Subway Tunnel Diameter

The size of the bored subway tunnels for Section 3 has been increased from an outside diameter of 20 feet 10 inches to 22 feet 6 inches to accommodate portions of the crossover at the Westwood/VA Station and thereby reduce the size of the cut-and-cover excavation. The distance between the tunnels has been reduced to keep the tunnels within the subsurface easement areas identified in the FEIS/FEIR. The larger tunnels would reduce the length of the station box cut-and-cover excavation by approximately 50 feet at each crossover. As a result, the station would not extend into the I-405 off-ramp near the east end of the station and the easement area required by the WLA VA Historic District on the west end of the station box would be reduced.

[numble]

Originally Posted by joshuanickel

Metro has announced that they will be using a larger diameter TBM on phase 3 so that special trackwork will fit in the tunnel:

https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...ch=&FullText=1

Subway Tunnel Diameter

The size of the bored subway tunnels for Section 3 has been increased from an outside diameter of 20 feet 10 inches to 22 feet 6 inches to accommodate portions of the crossover at the Westwood/VA Station and thereby reduce the size of the cut-and-cover excavation. The distance between the tunnels has been reduced to keep the tunnels within the subsurface easement areas identified in the FEIS/FEIR. The larger tunnels would reduce the length of the station box cut-and-cover excavation by approximately 50 feet at each crossover. As a result, the station would not extend into the I-405 off-ramp near the east end of the station and the easement area required by the WLA VA Historic District on the west end of the station box would be reduced.

Nice catch. Based on this webpage at the TBM manufacturer, it seems the Section 2 TBMs are already being manufactured and will be too small for the increased size: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/medi...n-la-fort.html

[numble]

Here is Metro’s failed INFRA grant application for $80 million to fund ExpressLanes on the 105: https://www.dropbox.com/s/alibbfzhoa...0Only.pdf?dl=0

The INFRA grant application has many interesting details, including their plan to loan toll revenue from the 10/110 ExpressLanes to fund the 105 construction, the estimated $8.3 billion cost for completion of the planned 621-mile ExpressLanes network, and their estimate that the network can generate $1.2 to $1.6 billion in toll-backed debt, as well as an additional $500-$650 million in additional toll revenues from Tier 1 projects. It’s not clear what the time horizons are on these figures, though.

A system financing approach will maximize non-federal funding by supporting from $1.2 to $1.6 billion in total toll-backed financing capacity, as much as $900 million more than would be achievable through a traditional standalone project financing for individual corridors. Key variables driving the revenue range estimate shown in Table 8 include the HOV toll exemption policy, assumed level of revenue support from high-performing ExpressLanes corridors, and lifecycle cost accounting.

Once operational, priority (Tier 1) ExpressLanes corridors are projected to generate an additional $500–$650 million in excess cash flow after debt service (in discounted 2017 dollars), which could be used for additional pay-as-go investment.

Measure M Expenditure Plan adopted by voters requires funded projects to adhere to the groundbreaking sequence specified in the Plan. For I-105 ExpressLanes, Measure M construction funds cannot be accessed for the project prior to FY 2027.

Metro is addressing this fiscal constraint through an interfund loan from the I-10/I-110 ExpressLanes Net Toll Revenue Account. An interfund loan of up to $104 million will be provided at the start of construction, then repaid by Measure M funds programmed for I-105 ExpressLanes beginning in FY 2027.

[caligrad]

http://www.lamag.com/mass-transit-disneyland/

Interesting article about how LA is turning into what Walt Disney viewed the world of the future.

[sopas ej]

Not as sexy as rail, but a novelty in the US, for sure.

Electric Double-Decker Buses to Service Downtown Los Angeles in 2019

July 12, 2018 by Susan Carpenter

Double-decker transit buses are an icon in London and a mainstay in other European cities, but stateside? Not so much.

But this week a transit agency serving commuters in the San Gabriel Valley just outside Los Angeles announced that it would add a pair of double-decker buses to its fleet. The fact that they’re electric makes them a double novelty.

“We believe that electric vehicles are there,” said Doran Barnes, executive director of Foothill Transit — the first transit agency in North America to use all-electric double-decker buses. Already, about a third of its 370-bus fleet is electric, and it plans to go entirely electric by 2030.

“There’s still things to be learned,” Barnes said, “but we’re leaning in and leading the industry in advancing the technology.”

The double-deck buses can carry 80 passengers in the same footprint as a 38-passenger single-deck bus, Barnes said. In an increasingly congested part of the country where every inch of road space counts, stacking passengers holds the potential to reduce traffic.

And doing so on an electric platform also helps one of the region’s other entrenched issues: air pollution. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that electric buses were eight times more energy efficient than those that ran on natural gas.

“We wanted to help Foothill, but it didn’t make a whole lot of sense for us to develop a double-decker bus,” said Ryan Popple, chief executive of Proterra, one of two major electric bus companies based in California.



[...]

Link: https://www.trucks.com/2018/07/12/el...s-los-angeles/

[202_Cyclist]

It's electric!

[aquablue]

L.A needs some kind of rapid transit suburban rail. The area is very large for light rail. Why don't they do something like London has, with Overground or RER in Paris or Sydney. Aren't there any old tracks to use in the area?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

It's electric!

Boogie woogie woogie!



I don't know how many Filipino wedding receptions I've been to where I've danced to this, communal electric slide.