HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5541  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2021, 5:20 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I don't believe Purple should interline with Sepulveda; I just think it shouldn't be totally ruled out. That's why I'm against Bechtel's idea of narrower three-car consists. Three cars won't suffice once the line is extended down to the LAX/SoFi/Clippers arena arena. Just build the stations with the standard 450-foot platforms. Doesn't the use of a single-bore tunnel mean that they wouldn't have to build actual station boxes that drive up constructions costs? And if that's the case, why don't they spend more on an extra-large TBM to fit in a third or even fourth track for express services?
The South Island Line in Hong Kong operates with 3-car trains. Each car is long with 4 doors each and has quite a bit of capacity, plus it is open gangway. Automation means the trains run way more frequently that you can afford with human operators.

Given the expected ridership in LA this seems more than adequate.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5542  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2021, 8:00 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 50,085
Most LA Metro Riders Could Ride For Free Starting Next Year Under New Pilot Plan

https://laist.com/2021/02/26/los_ang...nsit_pilot.php

Quote:
.....

- L.A. Metro CEO Phillip Washington launched a task force in September to study how the county's transit agency could transition to a fare-free system. Under the leading concept presented to Metro's board of directors Thursday, the agency would launch a two-phase pilot program in January 2022. --- The first phase would allow low-income riders to ride Metro's buses and trains for free. The transit agency reports that about 70% of its current riders earn less than $35,000 annually and would qualify for free fares under the current proposal. Metro staff projects free transit "would save riders up to $1,200 each annually." Then in August 2022, fareless transit would extend to all K-12 students in the county. --- Under the current model being studied, free fares would be offered on Metro's bus and train lines. Municipal transit operators, Metrolink, Access Services, and Metro bikeshare and microtransit programs would not be included. The pilot would run to June 2023, then Metro leaders could decide to continue or expand free transit to more riders and services.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5543  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2021, 7:20 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 173
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
The Centinela alignment for the Westside-LAX segment is/was by far the most compelling alternative IMO, but I always knew it was a long shot. But automated operations and 1.5-2.5-minute headways is a major win. I do wonder if the 3-car consists are too short though. It'd be annoying to have to wait for the next train (even if it's just 90 seconds) because the current one is overcrowded or at full capacity.

To your last point about "salvaging" the SkyRail proposal... I don't get it. The reason why this is even viable is because of the cost savings afforded by the elevated alignment.
The smaller trains and high frequency they are taking a page out of Vancouver's Canada Line where they have smaller platforms and just run them at high frequencies.

God forbid they could have taken our existing light rail vehicles as 3 car trains (270' in length) and run them at high frequencies through a grade separated alignment and did the same thing and had an added bonus of running service up Van Nuys Blvd...but I digress.

However it goes back to conversations going on close to two years ago when folks believed so strongly that Centinela was the right alignment but the numbers and logic played out that Sepulveda is where you have to go to get the vertical flexibility of either subway or elevated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Things that I do like about the BYD proposal:

1) Cheaper cost (although probably not as much as is being advertised).
2) A dedicated Getty Center station. If you're going to follow the 405, you might as well build one. This actually really intrigues me and makes the MRT concept more palatable, because this really represents the only chance to ever build a Getty Center station.
3) The longer consists (up to 8-car trains) AND the frequency.
4) Talks of expansion beyond LAX and Van Nuys.
5) The trains themselves have a sleek design and resemble bullet trains, which I think would bring an added psychological effect and potentially capture choice riders.

If they can have an underground alignment from UCLA to Expo and then aerial along Sepulveda, I actually might be okay with it since the other option follows Sepulveda. Placing stations in the middle of a freeway is what I take umbrage with.
Agreed all of these factors plus it is up to $50M less to operate annually (I am thinking the number is closer to $30-36M) makes a big difference to operate other portions of the network or provide enhanced bus service to feed it.

Let's really envision this entire corridor as a multi-modal approach with a network of 405 Freeway express buses from Santa Clarita/North County and or Long Beach/Orange County to feed into the Skyrail to really boost connectivity.

I am torn. I like the Skyrail for cost-effective delivery of the project however I like the methodology in the Bechtel proposal in how we construct and think about future HRT corridors.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Mar 27, 2021 at 9:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5544  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2021, 4:50 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 553
I know this might be somewhat of a pipe dream, but Elon Musk's original vision for starting The Boring Company was for the 405. What if we built the Skyrail in the median of the 405 and eventually got The Boring company to build an electric super fast 405 freeway in tunnels underground... then got rid of the noisy, surface-scarring, traffic clogged 405 completely (or significantly downsized it from 12 surface lanes to 4 for the remaining gas guzzlers) replaced with surface area green space. We will have built a train in the middle of a park!! Instant land value increase and development opportunities worth Billions

With the prices of what the heavy rail alternative is, $20+ Billion full Valley/LAX , we could have a 155mph super fast underground 405 for $25 million per mile, a fully built out Van Nuys/LAX Skyrail for $10 Billion, and a new 20 mile linear park/greenway

Last edited by hughfb3; Mar 6, 2021 at 5:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5545  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2021, 8:43 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
There is a point of diminishing return on the size single bore tunnel. Once you get too large, two tunnels become cost effective again.

Also, I don't know if the geology under the mountain can support an "extra large" tunnel. I don't think anyone has done a subway tunnel big enough to fit 4 tracks anywhere in the world.
Right. Numble's Twitter thread on the Bechtel proposal highlights that "[a]ny reduction in overall tunnel diameter has dramatic positive flowdown effects in terms of project cost.

https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...919782913?s=20
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5546  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2021, 8:54 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The South Island Line in Hong Kong operates with 3-car trains. Each car is long with 4 doors each and has quite a bit of capacity, plus it is open gangway. Automation means the trains run way more frequently that you can afford with human operators.

Given the expected ridership in LA this seems more than adequate.
The documents indicate that they plan on leaving open the possibility of expanding train sets to 4-cars (so about 287 feet) and headways to 90 seconds, so that should suffice.

Paris Metro's Line 1, the busiest in the system (over 500K riders on an average weekday), is fully automated and those trains are only 296 feet long and narrow as hell (8' wide).

Last edited by Quixote; Mar 8, 2021 at 1:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5547  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2021, 9:33 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
However it goes back to conversations going on close to two years ago when folks believed so strongly that Centinela was the right alignment but the numbers and logic played out that Sepulveda is where you have to go to get the vertical flexibility of either subway or elevated.
I disagree about Sepulveda having more ridership potential than Centinela. Sepulveda running parallel to the 405 separated by less than 1,000 feet reduces ridership capture and TOD opportunities (although there's always the fantasy of making the 405 subterranean).

What I will agree with is that if Sepulveda is to be the alignment of choice, and it likely will be, then they might as well just build it aerial starting around Clover before reverting to a subway before Sawtelle. I'm fine with making it elevated as much as possible, although UCLA campus (obviously), Purple Line connection, and Expo/Sepulveda must be subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5548  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2021, 10:18 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
I want to like the SkyRail option, but I just think that using the novel proprietary technology (where is it "proven" as they claim?) of a Chinese manufacturer (I'd have more faith if it were a German design) is too much a roll of the dice for such an important corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5549  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 12:41 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Dropbox link to redacted version of Bechtel proposal:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ip41fut92...82%29.pdf?dl=0

Some takeaways:

1) They mention 24/7 operations (!) as being part of the "project definition" as laid out by Metro.
2) The station platforms would be 280' long and 15' wide (each).
3) A 4-car consist would be 288' long, or 72' per car (will vary based on whether it's an A/B car).
4) Based on measurements from a diagram on page 243 and the FTA mandate that platform gaps be no more than 3", I calculate that the vehicle width would be anywhere from 8'-4" to 9'-5" (give or take).

Toronto's Scarborough line uses the same vehicles as the Vancouver SkyTrain, and those measure 8'-2". The car layout diagrams, assuming they're accurate, suggest we're looking at vehicles more than 9' wide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5550  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 1:00 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
As an aside, I hope the vehicles are Bombardier or Alstom Metropolis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5551  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 4:57 AM
jamesinclair jamesinclair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
(where is it "proven" as they claim?) .
Sao Paulo has multiple lines now
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5552  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 6:47 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 173
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I disagree about Sepulveda having more ridership potential than Centinela. Sepulveda running parallel to the 405 separated by less than 1,000 feet reduces ridership capture and TOD opportunities (although there's always the fantasy of making the 405 subterranean).

What I will agree with is that if Sepulveda is to be the alignment of choice, and it likely will be, then they might as well just build it aerial starting around Clover before reverting to a subway before Sawtelle. I'm fine with making it elevated as much as possible, although UCLA campus (obviously), Purple Line connection, and Expo/Sepulveda must be subway.
You can disagree until your hearts content but it still won't pencil out. Even if it did, you would think that SCTP's proposal would have went for Centinela. In fact pages 210, 224 and 276 of the 380 page document spell out that Sepulveda was the highest performing in the Feasibility Report to head south towards LAX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pg 224 from Metro Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners(STCP)
"At the south end of the line, we selected the Expo/Sepulveda Station. It is the best option to facilitate the future Westside-LAX Extension, because it is the closest terminus (of the two possibilities: Expo/Sepulveda vs. Expo/Bundy) that leads into the highest-performing Westside-LAX Extension option, the HRT Sepulveda Boulevard alignment.

This provides STCP’s TSC the shortest, quickest, and least expensive route to LAX. The Expo/Sepulveda Station also provides excellent transit transfers to the existing Metro E Line and various local bus lines operated by multiple agencies and transit-oriented development superior to that of the Expo/Bundy option. The Expo/Sepulveda Station area is seeing
significant development as a key TOC, which will allow the extension to LAX from the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project to seamlessly integrate when that time arrives"
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Mar 8, 2021 at 7:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5553  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 1:51 PM
transitfan transitfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
As an aside, I hope the vehicles are Bombardier or Alstom Metropolis.
Isn't Bombardier out of the railcar business?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5554  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 2:46 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by transitfan View Post
Isn't Bombardier out of the railcar business?
They still make ART systems, now called Innovia Metro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5555  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 4:51 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesinclair View Post
Sao Paulo has multiple lines now
Monorails have been around for decades, but BYD as the sole designer, manufacturer, builder, and operator is not a proven model and would be putting too many eggs in one basket. Their SkyRail concept, unveiled in 2016, is very much still a novelty and represents their entry into the monorail market.

Quote:
BYD is the world’s only totally vertically integrated monorail system supplier. This means that BYD takes full, single point responsibility for the entire SkyRail project, thereby taking on the risks of on-time, within budget project implementation. BYD can do this because we design, manufacture, install, test and commission all of the critical elements of the SkyRail system, including:

• SkyRail trains
• Driverless train control and communications system
• High tolerance, unique, pre-cast structural guide beams
• Guide beam switches
• Traction power and distribution system, with wayside high technology battery storage
https://en.byd.com/wp-content/upload...technology.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5556  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 5:00 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
You can disagree until your hearts content but it still won't pencil out. Even if it did, you would think that SCTP's proposal would have went for Centinela. In fact pages 210, 224 and 276 of the 380 page document spell out that Sepulveda was the highest performing in the Feasibility Report to head south towards LAX.
That's based on Metro's study, and as bzcat said, it wouldn't be out of character for them to fix the numbers. The Centinela alignment has one more station, one of which directly serves the office complexes in Playa Vista, and the travel time isn't that much longer than Sepulveda. HRT3 has one more station than HRT1 and a longer travel time, yet it also is projected to yield higher ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5557  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 6:36 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
That's based on Metro's study, and as bzcat said, it wouldn't be out of character for them to fix the numbers. The Centinela alignment has one more station, one of which directly serves the office complexes in Playa Vista, and the travel time isn't that much longer than Sepulveda. HRT3 has one more station than HRT1 and a longer travel time, yet it also is projected to yield higher ridership.
The issue here is neither corridors have gone thru an EIR. Just the preliminary study and that study has some flaws which has been pointed out already. The cost advantage is based on eliminating one station and the ridership modeling seems to counter conventional wisdom about locating a rail line next to a freeway. What happens to the cost and ridership if we eliminated the Culver station on the Centinela alignment and assumes full built out of Playa Vista Google campus?

The three options were:
Sepulveda/Expo, Sepulveda/Venice, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Centinela/Expo, Centinela/Venice, Centinela/Culver, Playa Vista (Centinela/Jefferson), Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Westwood/Expo, Sony Studio (Overland/Venice), Overland/Jefferson, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX

Just look at it... did someone add an unnecessary/under performing station to Centinela and Overland alignment on purpose? You tell me...

I also don't believe the politics will allow the line to be elevated anywhere in West LA so any argument that Sepulveda has an advantage because it preserves that option is a weak argument in my opinion.

I just want both Centinela and Sepulveda corridors to LAX to remain on the table for EIR.

Last edited by bzcat; Mar 8, 2021 at 6:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5558  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 6:56 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
^ It's going to be hard justifying building elevated in the Valley but not through Culver City and Westchester. Sepulveda in the SFV is a wider street and not as congested though, but the bad optics are still there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5559  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 7:58 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
The issue here is neither corridors have gone thru an EIR. Just the preliminary study and that study has some flaws which has been pointed out already. The cost advantage is based on eliminating one station and the ridership modeling seems to counter conventional wisdom about locating a rail line next to a freeway. What happens to the cost and ridership if we eliminated the Culver station on the Centinela alignment and assumes full built out of Playa Vista Google campus?

The three options were:
Sepulveda/Expo, Sepulveda/Venice, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Centinela/Expo, Centinela/Venice, Centinela/Culver, Playa Vista (Centinela/Jefferson), Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Westwood/Expo, Sony Studio (Overland/Venice), Overland/Jefferson, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX

Just look at it... did someone add an unnecessary/under performing station to Centinela and Overland alignment on purpose? You tell me...

I also don't believe the politics will allow the line to be elevated anywhere in West LA so any argument that Sepulveda has an advantage because it preserves that option is a weak argument in my opinion.

I just want both Centinela and Sepulveda corridors to LAX to remain on the table for EIR.
It does really seem like Metro was sandbagging the Centinella and Overland options. Why would they do that? What makes them prefer a Sepulveda route, just simplicity of construction?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5560  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2021, 8:40 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
The issue here is neither corridors have gone thru an EIR. Just the preliminary study and that study has some flaws which has been pointed out already. The cost advantage is based on eliminating one station and the ridership modeling seems to counter conventional wisdom about locating a rail line next to a freeway. What happens to the cost and ridership if we eliminated the Culver station on the Centinela alignment and assumes full built out of Playa Vista Google campus?

The three options were:
Sepulveda/Expo, Sepulveda/Venice, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Centinela/Expo, Centinela/Venice, Centinela/Culver, Playa Vista (Centinela/Jefferson), Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX
Westwood/Expo, Sony Studio (Overland/Venice), Overland/Jefferson, Culver City Transit Center/Westfield Fox Hill, Sepulveda/Manchester, 96th Street/LAX

Just look at it... did someone add an unnecessary/under performing station to Centinela and Overland alignment on purpose? You tell me...

I also don't believe the politics will allow the line to be elevated anywhere in West LA so any argument that Sepulveda has an advantage because it preserves that option is a weak argument in my opinion.

I just want both Centinela and Sepulveda corridors to LAX to remain on the table for EIR.
Well both Centinela and Overland adds about 1.0 mile to the route with not much benefit other than future TOD 'placemaking' which was the bulk of many justifications in these alignments about two years ago. Now they added a station for that very purpose but now folks are crying foul? You can't have it both ways. If the alignment is a strong transit corridor then an extra station wouldn't be a deterrent.

Lets say they eliminated those stations and you got a faster trip, you still have to make up for the fact that both Centinela and Overland alignments are going to be longer (which costs more Capital) with not much more in the way of ridership which effects Operations and Maintenance Costs because a private entity will be operating this they want to keep those costs under control and manageable.

Let's use the BYD Skyrail proposal as an example. Their base route had a straight line Sepulveda Pass alignment without a station on the UCLA campus. They added an option to include the UCLA component because they saw that the cost benefit to make that adjustment will be made up with higher ridership. This is no different to diverting to Century City for the Wilshire Subway. If the diversion though adding a station and length will get you more ridership at modest cost, then it is worth it.

This is simple geometry and quickest path between points is a straight line. Lets say for the Overland portion they go a straight path and tunnel from Venice/Overland to Sepulveda/Slauson there is more risk involved because of all the homes underneath that deep wide bore TBM easement path that the P3 have to mitigate against compared to staying under public street right of way. Centinela falls in this trap on the northern section between Sepulveda/Santa Monica to Expo/Bundy that extra route length is not going to make up for ridership and TOD potential at Expo/Bundy where NIMBY's don't want TOD.

The only anchor Centinela Corridor has is Playa Vista, and its far more effective to stay on Sepulveda and divert to Playa Vista then to go with a brand new corridor in Centinela.

Centinela and Overland options even with the TOD potential doesn't make up for the two strikes already against it being a longer route and to keep it as a solid alternate you actually have to add stations to make it viable for ridership or the stations have to be super high activity centers to justify the costs.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Mar 27, 2021 at 9:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.