LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[JDRCRASH]

I know that Brightline plans to (eventually) send their proposed HSR from Victorville to Rancho's Metrolink station. Maybe this is an attempt to "link" that to ONT?

https://www.sgvtribune.com/2021/02/0...to-next-phase/

EDIT: I know some of you who hate the idea of extending Gold (L) to ONT would love this tidbit from the article:

The Loop would cost considerably less than the stalled $1- to $1.5-billion light-rail extension of the Gold Line (now known as the L Line) from Pomona to the airport, and could be built in two or three years rather than the 10 years it would take to extend the light-rail, according to the SBCTA.

[M II A II R II K]

Monorail or heavy rail? Metro narrows its focus in the Sepulveda Pass

https://urbanize.city/la/post/monora...sepulveda-pass

.....

- Metro's search for a private sector team to build a monorail or heavy rail line through the Sepulveda Pass has narrowed to two candidates, the transportation agency announced last week. In March, Metro staff will recommend that the agency's Board of Directors vote to approve a $63.6-million contract with LA SkyRail Express and a $69.8-million contract with Sepulveda Transit Corridor Partners. --- he SkyRail express proposal calls for a fully aerial alignment with automated vehicles. The total cost of their project, estimated at $6.1 billion, would provide a one-way trip from the Valley to the Westside in approximately 24 minutes.

- Likewise, the Bechtel proposal also calls for automated operations - but using traditional heavy rail technology. Trains would run on aerial structures and within a single-bore tunnel between the Valley and the Westside, with an end-to-end trip of 19.7 minutes. The total cost of the heavy rail alternative, which would run below grade for 62 percent of its route, is estimated at $10.8 billion. --- Other concepts which were not recommended for consideration included a proposal to build the Sepulveda Pass project as a below-grade extension of the future East San Fernando Valley light rail line - which is scheduled to break ground in 2022 - permitting a one-seat right from as far north as Pacoima.

.....

Conceptual rendering of a heavy rail station in Sherman Oaks

[Quixote]

The fact that monorail is still one of the modal options makes me more than a little uneasy. Ultimately, I think the longer travel time, greater environmental impact (elevated viaducts), novel modal technology, and awkward detour to a dedicated UCLA station (an absolute non-negotiable, as far as I'm concerned) will be the reason HRT is rightfully chosen as the preferred modal alternative. I'm also very, very pleased to know that they're proposing this be fully-automated.

Neither the Bechtel nor Tutor Perini (nixed) proposals called for a 100% underground route, which would seem to indicate that HRT3 is their recommended alignment alternative. I prefer HRT1, but I do see value in setting an important precedent for elevated HRT in a white neighborhood.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Neither the Bechtel nor Tutor Perini (nixed) proposals called for a 100% underground route, which would seem to indicate that HRT3 is their recommended alignment alternative. I prefer HRT1, but I do see value in setting an important precedent for elevated HRT in a white neighborhood.

Well fortunately the days of rickety steel skeleton behemoths hovering over city streets has long since ended. If anything the closest thing these HOA's can compare it to is Expo, only elevated between the stations. And that's not so bad, is it?

Also I think depicting (but not exaggerating) the shadows created by the aerial alignment in the renderings helps the cause, too

[Quixote]

I'm not at all concerned about the aesthetics of elevated viaducts, although residents of that area probably do.

What I'm concerned about is the fact that the monorail option has made it this far and that it's $4.7 billion cheaper than the HRT alternative. Previous reports indicated a much higher price tag for MRT. How were they able to go from $9.4 billion to $6.1 billion? Per the document, the MRT proposal would be 100% aerial... meaning a direct on-campus UCLA station is out of the question. And any proposal that has the audacity to suggest that UCLA doesn't warrant its own station should be ruled out immediately. Further, how can you build an aerial alignment that cuts through existing built-up neighborhoods? Did these clowns even bother to do an aerial examination of the corridor? A fully aerial alignment is neither politically nor (for all intents and purposes) physically possible. This should've been DOA, yet they decided it was worth taking seriously. Perhaps it's just a strategic maneuver to justify going with the more expensive option, as some have suggested.

Metro Unveils Revised Alternatives for the Sepulveda Pass Rail Line

[ardecila]

I'm assuming the drop in costs is because the monorail solution is supplied by a Chinese vendor (BYD), and the price may either:
A) be done at a loss for various reasons and/or
B) may not fully reflect the requirements of Buy America, Davis-Bacon, etc.

So that cost may be too good to be true (it's actually still extremely expensive by the standards of other developed countries).

Assuming for the moment that SkyRail can deliver a monorail system at the stated price, is it really worth spending an extra $5B on heavy rail to put a station at UCLA? Also, the "heavy rail" solution sounds a lot like Honolulu's HART system, which means the LA version could be in for serious and extreme cost overruns as well, and it would not be compatible with the Purple Line.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The fact that monorail is still one of the modal options makes me more than a little uneasy.

Ditto

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm assuming the drop in costs is because the monorail solution is supplied by a Chinese vendor (BYD), and the price may either:
A) be done at a loss for various reasons and/or
B) may not fully reflect the requirements of Buy America, Davis-Bacon, etc.

So that cost may be too good to be true (it's actually still extremely expensive by the standards of other developed countries).

Assuming for the moment that SkyRail can deliver a monorail system at the stated price, is it really worth spending an extra $5B on heavy rail to put a station at UCLA? Also, the "heavy rail" solution sounds a lot like Honolulu's HART system, which means the LA version could be in for serious and extreme cost overruns as well, and it would not be compatible with the Purple Line.

The cost savings are most definitely the switch to a 100% aerial alignment; the previous version was 30% tunnel with four subway stations. On the Westside, one subway station runs anywhere from $750 million to $1 billion based on Purple Line extension costs. That's where the $5 billion difference comes from. There's no way Metro can renege on a UCLA station; it's essentially the centerpiece of this phase. And don't forget that in addition to the school itself, there's also a large and important hospital.

All early indications are that the HRT option would utilize the same technology as the existing heavy rail lines, only in this case the trains would be fully automated.

[Quixote]

A $6.1 billion price tag comes out to $400 million per mile. "Too good to be true" is an understatement. I want to know why they disqualified Tutor Perini for not "put[ting] forward a strong recommendation regarding alignment" when this monorail proposal leaves more questions than answers. There's no way you could build elevated rail anywhere near the UCLA campus, and the consequences of failing to serve UCLA proper should be reflected in ridership projections. Unless I'm completely missing something, there's very little about this SkyRail proposal that makes sense.

[numble]

The details on the recommended proposals are out:


https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...3-921C333BD9CA

[Quixote]

^ Numble at it again.

As I initially suspected, SkyRail alignment follows the 405. Yeah, that's a total waste and isn't worth pursuing. I feel a bit better now, as I don't think that will be palatable to others.

I am disappointed that they're proposing a Sepulveda (instead of Bundy) terminus. Will Metro still study this alternative (and the HRT1 option) even though it's not being pursued by Bechtel?

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Numble at it again.

As I initially suspected, SkyRail alignment follows the 405. Yeah, that's a total waste and isn't worth pursuing. I feel a bit better now, as I don't think that will be palatable to others.

I am disappointed that they're proposing a Sepulveda (instead of Bundy) terminus. Will Metro still study this alternative (and the HRT1 option) even though it's not being pursued by Bechtel?

Metro will keep studying the prior options until the board votes to take them off the table. But it is possible that they take some options off the table as doing an environmental impact report for 6 options would be time-consuming and costly.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I prefer HRT1, but I do see value in setting an important precedent for elevated HRT in a white neighborhood.

Yeah you could impress your friends by spray painting BLM on the pillars.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ Numble at it again.

As I initially suspected, SkyRail alignment follows the 405. Yeah, that's a total waste and isn't worth pursuing. I feel a bit better now, as I don't think that will be palatable to others.

I am disappointed that they're proposing a Sepulveda (instead of Bundy) terminus. Will Metro still study this alternative (and the HRT1 option) even though it's not being pursued by Bechtel?

I think Metro is done pursuing free-form alignments underground after the debacle in Century City/BHHS. Too much uncertainty and legal risk. I completely understand why they don't want to cut across Sawtelle at a diagonal to get to Expo/Bundy.

[Quixote]

^ Then they might as well not tunnel under Bel Air and Sherman Oaks. Do you now agree that the MRT proposal, as currently constituted, is a non-starter? No UCLA station in conjunction with the slower speed and connection at the VA instead of Wilshire/Westwood will not yield ridership that is a mere 15,000 less than the HRT option.

The "free-form" route to Bundy mostly travels beneath federally owned land, and those that live in Sawtelle (besides having significantly less clout than homeowners in the aforementioned Bel Air and Sherman Oaks), would probably welcome the transit.

[ardecila]

Even in the subway option the mountain crossing will likely follow the 405 so it doesn't need to go under any private property for most of the route.

Getting to UCLA campus may require this but we haven't seen a detailed alignment with station locations. I'm guessing it will loosely follow Sunset, Westwood, Pico.

Do you now agree that the MRT proposal, as currently constituted, is a non-starter? No UCLA station in conjunction with the slower speed and connection at the VA instead of Wilshire/Westwood will not yield ridership that is a mere 15,000 less than the HRT option.

Non-starter for whom, is the question. Measure R/M have finite revenue and a long list of projects to get done. The savings from the Sepulveda project alone could pay for a whole LRT branch elsewhere in the city. And in lieu of a direct connection, SkyRail has suggested other ways to serve UCLA campus with a people mover system that could be underground or elevated (ideally linking to the VA station for direct connections to both lines).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Non-starter for whom, is the question. Measure R/M have finite revenue and a long list of projects to get done. The savings from the Sepulveda project alone could pay for a whole LRT branch elsewhere in the city. And in lieu of a direct connection, SkyRail has suggested other ways to serve UCLA campus with a people mover system that could be underground or elevated (ideally linking to the VA station for direct connections to both lines).

Heavy rail transit with stations built underground in the ideal location are transformative. Car travel can't compete in time or convenience. The trains are faster and perfectly-placed stations reduce walking times.

Light rail is rarely transformative. It can't attract many choice riders because the trains are slower and the stations are often in random locations (i.e. the bulk of the blue line), not the exact centers of business districts or in this case, the exact center of a major university/hospital complex.

One thing that is problematic in the heavy rail configuration is that we are wasting the opportunity to build the combined transfer station at Wilshire/Westwood right now. The chance to save money and build an ideal transfer configuration from a pedestrian standpoint is being missed.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Even in the subway option the mountain crossing will likely follow the 405 so it doesn't need to go under any private property for most of the route.

Getting to UCLA campus may require this but we haven't seen a detailed alignment with station locations. I'm guessing it will loosely follow Sunset, Westwood, Pico.

Why? It wasn't a problem with the red line from Hollywood/Highland to Universal City or the purple line through Century City. Subways just usually follow roads because they're the precise rout the line needs to take and good places for station boxes.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Heavy rail transit with stations built underground in the ideal location are transformative. Car travel can't compete in time or convenience. The trains are faster and perfectly-placed stations reduce walking times.

Light rail is rarely transformative. It can't attract many choice riders because the trains are slower and the stations are often in random locations (i.e. the bulk of the blue line), not the exact centers of business districts or in this case, the exact center of a major university/hospital complex.

Smart planning is to build efficient subway networks and then concentrate uses around those. This is what Toronto did. It's what LA would be doing too, if homeowners and NIMBYs hadn't conspired to lock most of the city in amber with a draconian zoning code. What you shouldn't do is plan a detour for every little cluster of office buildings or apartment complexes.

UCLA is admittedly kind of a special case as a major institution that can't easily be relocated. Century City detour is just bad planning, the Purple Line should have followed Wilshire with major TOD planned for at the country club or Beverly Glen.

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Why? It wasn't a problem with the red line from Hollywood/Highland to Universal City or the purple line through Century City. Subways just usually follow roads because they're the precise rout the line needs to take and good places for station boxes.

It wasn't a problem that Beverly Hills High School and various homeowners took Metro to court, delayed the project by several years, and forced costly redesigns? This is a HUGE problem. Yes, the line is ultimately getting built but a failure to meet schedule and budget is still a failure, especially when more Purple Line cost means less money for other projects. I would not be surprised if the total pricetag of the Beverly Hills debacle was in the high 9 figures purely due to YOY cost escalation.

LA kind of forces these dumb detours because the logical corridor along Wilshire is locked in amber and can't be redeveloped (see above).

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

The sky rail option is nonsense. Total non starter. If they want to save money, might as well not build anything. This must be a tunnel hrt with a stop at ucla and connections to the purple line.