LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

^ I like how that concept utilizes some freight corridors and turning them into Metrolink lines.

Originally Posted by badrunner

We should note that map is pure fantasy (it's titled SC Transit Dream Map_2014) in case anyone gets the wrong idea here. Though I do like the idea of a Metrolink line to San Pedro using existing freight tracks. I don't know how practical that would be, but as a railfan I would like nothing more than to take a diesel train on a night ride through the industrial heartland of the region.

That was the idea in Sierra Club's map was about utilizing the Right of ways we have so that we can focus on the core corridors that need the heavier infrastructure (Vermont, Whittier, etc).

Thankfully diesel locomotive technology has improved considerably in the last decade to where a Metrolink style service could work. Metro studied the entire Harbor Subdivision Corridor back in 2009-2010 from the Blue Line through the South Bay. They learned that on top of the Green Line Extension to Torrance having the highest priority.

Metro thought that a 7 day a week Metrolink Service (from LA Union Station, LAX, South Bay and San Pedro) would be justified and could have been upgraded for under $1B in 2009 dollars.

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

That's cool, i'd actually prefer it continue on to the Signal Hill/LGB area so we can have some form of Metrolink access to the Long Beach area.

However that ROW ends at Carson Street on a lumber yard to continue to Signal Hill and LGB would require costly trenching/tunnelling

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

That was the idea in Sierra Club's map was about utilizing the Right of ways we have so that we can focus on the core corridors that need the heavier infrastructure (Vermont, Whittier, etc).

Thankfully diesel locomotive technology has improved considerably in the last decade to where a Metrolink style service could work. Metro studied the entire Harbor Subdivision Corridor back in 2009-2010 from the Blue Line through the South Bay. They learned that on top of the Green Line Extension to Torrance having the highest priority.

Metro thought that a 7 day a week Metrolink Service (from LA Union Station, LAX, South Bay and San Pedro) would be justified and could have been upgraded for under $1B in 2009 dollars.

Would “electrification” of metrolink require catenary wires? Or could it become something like Metro North/LIRR that is 3rd rail? I sure feel like the former would kind of be difficult installing for the current Bombardier/Hyundai cars. I mean would they even be able to clear existing tunnels (ex.110/105 interchange)?

However that ROW ends at Carson Street on a lumber yard to continue to Signal Hill and LGB would require costly trenching/tunnelling

Right, though even a station at Carson St would be cool considering how there’s been recent plans to revitalize the area around LGB. Something is much better than nothing. Maybe there could be shuttles sending riders from a metrolink station to LGB and/or Willow station A Line.

[ardecila]

^ Any new installation of third rail would likely require a sealed corridor - no grade crossings, fully fenced, etc.

[Busy Bee]

Any new installation of third rail would be unlikely as its become almost totally unfavored for current collection outside metro lines that require interoperability with the legacy system. Nearly all electrification projects for ground up electrification or new build metro sytems are OCS. I understand its also cheaper than ground 3rd rail which is probably the most significant contributing factor along with safety.

[ardecila]

This is not quite true, plenty of new-build metro systems continue to use a 3rd rail DC traction system, esp. in China to reduce the size and cost of tunnels, and lower the weight of train equipment for better acceleration (with DC you don't need an onboard transformer).

For Electrolink, the system would largely operate above ground so tunnel clearances are not a major issue (yes, i know there are a few tunnels on the system but not miles and miles of tunnel). Acceleration is less of an issue due to widely spaced stations. The substations can be smaller and further apart than a 3rd rail DC system, all things equal, and real estate in California is expensive. Lastly you want inter-operability with the HSR buildout from CAHSR and Brightline, at least on the Antelope Valley Line and LOSSAN, maybe on the San Bernardino Line if Brightline ever makes it to Rancho Cucamonga. So OCS is the clear winner - except some Californians think it's ugly.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is not quite true, plenty of new-build metro systems continue to use a 3rd rail DC traction system, esp. in China to reduce the size and cost of tunnels, and lower the weight of train equipment for better acceleration (with DC you don't need an onboard transformer).

That makes sense. I was just thinking of its lack of prevalence in NA and Europe.

Originally Posted by ardecila

So OCS is the clear winner - except some Californians think it's ugly.

Well, that explains it...


_


_

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Any new installation of third rail would be unlikely as its become almost totally unfavored for current collection outside metro lines that require interoperability with the legacy system. Nearly all electrification projects for ground up electrification or new build metro sytems are OCS. I understand its also cheaper than ground 3rd rail which is probably the most significant contributing factor along with safety.

I’ll agree that “most” new electrical rail lines will choose the cheaper and quicker to install overhead catenary systems, but “most” is not “all”. HART chose to install 3rd rail on an entirely new rail system, so 3rd rail still has it’s proponents. HART has avoided the safety issues by building on almost entirely elevated guideways, only coming to grade at maintenance yards and station areas that can be fenced or gated to keep trespassers away from the third rail.

[Busy Bee]

^ Forgot about Honolulu. You're right.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ Forgot about Honolulu. You're right.

However Honolulu is an automated HRT system

[electricron]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

However Honolulu is an automated HRT system

True, if you consider a max train length of 4 cars being heavy rail. Compared to 8,10, or 11 car long heavy rail subway trains in New York, that is a difficult pill for me to swallow.
HART station platform lengths being built max out at 240 feet.
NY subway station platform lengths are (1) IRT stations have platforms that are generally 525 feet long; (2) most BMT platforms are around 615 feet long, and (3) some IND platforms are 660 feet.
Note: 240 feet is less than half the length of NY subway's shortest platforms.

[transitfan]

Originally Posted by electricron

True, if you consider a max train length of 4 cars being heavy rail. Compared to 8,10, or 11 car long heavy rail subway trains in New York, that is a difficult pill for me to swallow.
HART station platform lengths being built max out at 240 feet.
NY subway station platform lengths are (1) IRT stations have platforms that are generally 525 feet long; (2) most BMT platforms are around 615 feet long, and (3) some IND platforms are 660 feet.
Note: 240 feet is less than half the length of NY subway's shortest platforms.

Except the ones on the Franklin Shuttle (except of course Prospect Park). They can only accommodate 2 75-foot cars, so I'm guessing 160 feet maybe.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by electricron

True, if you consider a max train length of 4 cars being heavy rail. Compared to 8,10, or 11 car long heavy rail subway trains in New York, that is a difficult pill for me to swallow.
HART station platform lengths being built max out at 240 feet.
NY subway station platform lengths are (1) IRT stations have platforms that are generally 525 feet long; (2) most BMT platforms are around 615 feet long, and (3) some IND platforms are 660 feet.
Note: 240 feet is less than half the length of NY subway's shortest platforms.

Heavy rail is about capacity, grade-separation, and frequency. Paris Metro, one of the best and busiest rapid transit systems in the world, operates mostly short trains. Line 1, fully automated and the busiest in the network, is only 296-feet long.

London Underground also has shorter train lengths compared to the NYC Subway, its busiest line (the Northern Line) operating trains 354 feet in length.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Heavy rail is about capacity, grade-separation, and frequency. Paris Metro, one of the best and busiest rapid transit systems in the world, operates mostly short trains. Line 1, fully automated and the busiest in the network, is only 296-feet long.

London Underground also has shorter train lengths compared to the NYC Subway, its busiest line (the Northern Line) operating trains 354 feet in length.

There is a mix of terminology here which is muddling the conversation...

Heavy rail as it is used in North America generally refers to capacity like you said. However, outside North America, it is a literal term - referring to trains that have higher axle load rating - a term generally used on mainline freight trains not metros.

The way we use the term heavy rail in North America to describe high capacity metro came about as a counter point to light rail, which is synonymous with the term low capacity metro used elsewhere in the world.

Most of the automated metros operating or being constructed in North America falls under medium capacity metros by worldwide standards. There is no hard definition but general consensus is 15k to 30k peak passengers per direction per hour. But some older metro lines that we generally think of as high capacity only have 25k peak capacity so it's not a precise cutoff. But above 30k passengers, pretty much everyone agrees it is a high capacity metro. And of course below 15k passengers, most people would call it light rail or low capacity. The actual type or size of the vehicle is not that important of distinction when talking about medium or high capacity metro. You can have 3rd rail medium capacity or short (but very frequent) high capacity lines.

Canada line in Vancouver has peak per hour per direction of 15k passengers so it is a medium capacity line. Honolulu's system is designed to have 8k max per direction per hour so it is a light rail or low capacity metro despite it being automated and grade separated.

The two Sepulveda proposals have different peak passenger capacity. Skyrail's max per hour per direction capacity is 14k to 19k which is considered a low or medium capacity system. The SCTP proposal will have max per hour per direction capacity of 27k which is near the transition between medium or high capacity metro.

[Quixote]

It’s all relative really. The SCTP proposal would/will be considered “heavy rail” by the APTA. They consider Boston’s Blue Line (288-foot trains) and even Cleveland’s Red Line “heavy rail.”

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Thoughts on Phil Washington and/or Eric Garcetti being considered for transportation-related posts in the new administration? I think Washington has done a terrible job as Metro's leader, so it's kind of perverse (and a bit nonsensical) that I'm sort of hoping he's tapped for a position.

Pending tomorrow's special board meeting vote, the next CEO of LA Metro is Stephanie Wiggins, current Metrolink CEO who was previously Phil Washington's deputy CEO. This probably ensures most of Washington's programs and plans will continue instead of being ditched midstream, it won't be like last time when they took basically a year to install a new executive team and ditch the former CEO's old projects and plans.
https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...092266497?s=20

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I feel like Washington has done a good job. He helped get Measure M passed and has overseen the construction of several high-profile expansion projects, including the Crenshaw Line, the regional connector and the Purple Line Extension.

Is there something that I am missing about him?

Yes, you missed a lot. The Crenshaw line is a disaster. Over budget with significant delays, and probably will not even open for revenue service completely because construction is pending on two overpass and 96th Street/LAX station. Speaking of the LAX station, it is 18 months behind schedule with contracts still not fully awarded. Meanwhile LAWA is on schedule to open the LAX APM in 2022... which means the APM will be fully operational but unable to transfer to Metro for at least 2 years.

Meanwhile the regional connectors is also behind schedule and over budget.

The Purple line extension is the only project that has been largely on schedule and budget under his watch.

[numble]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Yes, you missed a lot. The Crenshaw line is a disaster. Over budget with significant delays, and probably will not even open for revenue service completely because construction is pending on two overpass and 96th Street/LAX station. Speaking of the LAX station, it is 18 months behind schedule with contracts still not fully awarded. Meanwhile LAWA is on schedule to open the LAX APM in 2022... which means the APM will be fully operational but unable to transfer to Metro for at least 2 years.

Meanwhile the regional connectors is also behind schedule and over budget.

The Purple line extension is the only project that has been largely on schedule and budget under his watch.

The Crenshaw and Regional Connector contracts were awarded in 2013 and 2014 (and Purple Line 1 was awarded in 2014), before Phil Washington became CEO in 2015. Most of the issues come from rushing through the planning process or poor selection of contractor. Short of giving more money to the contractor or firing the contractor (both of which adds costs) there really are limited things you can do once the contract has been awarded--look at the CAHSR's problems with the contracts it awarded under the prior CEO. They replaced the CEO 3 years ago, but the new CEO was still stuck with the construction contracts they awarded in 2013 (and the poor planning for those contracts, such as underestimating the time it took to acquire land).

The LAX APM station contract seems to have been delayed because the pandemic clogged up the courts and delayed Metro's ability to obtain the land via eminent domain. There seems to be a conscious decision to not rush forward with awarding the contract before they obtain the land--which seems to be a good idea given that land acquisition delays have led to huge cost overruns on projects like the CAHSR.

Phil Washington's team has said they are taking a lot longer on environmental planning and risk identification and reduction before rushing forward with contracts, despite pressure to accelerate projects. So for the WSAB line, a lot of the things that have led to cost overruns in other projects will be completed/fully investigated before the construction contract is awarded:
https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...E-49D813EF3972

Certain project components have been identified as high risk/high consequence elements that if not planned strategically and executed successfully could impact the P3 contract and add cost and schedule delays to the LRT construction. These components generally require long lead times and /or high levels of design (~100%). These high-risk items have been packaged together as the project’s “Enabling Works,” which will be separately procured and constructed from the main LRT system, and include utilities investigations and relocation, geotechnical investigations, grade crossing design, freight rail relocation design and construction, and Caltrans interface (i.e. Green Line station and I-105 bridge reconstruction). Third party agreements must be in place for these elements to move to construction.

A lot of transit projects in the U.S. have run into issues because of poor initial planning and rushing into awarding contracts without clearing out the items (like land acquisition) that lead to cost overruns and delays. We won't see if the change in approach for future contracts will make any difference in keeping costs contained within contracted budgets for a couple of years, but I think the future projects, where his team has led the planning and contract procurement, will be a better judge of his management of the agency.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[bzcat]

Metro is taking public comment on Crenshaw North extension before locking in the EIR study options. This is our last chance to get them to scrap the hybrid and add a more logical "spur" concept. There has been a lengthy discussion on Transit Coalition forum for the spur concept and the basic jest is that it just makes more sense (plus it preserves the option to extend it further east and west.

Here are the three EIR options Metro presented:


The "spur" concept basically follow La Brea for the main north-south direction (most logical, fastest, cheapest) and will incorporate the best part of the hybrid - the east-west portion on Santa Monica Blvd between La Brea and La Cienega.

Here is a video that has a good high level summary of the spur idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrFswVO4Ms
I did not make the video... I will let andert who made the video to comment further.


Here is a form letter to submit to Metro if you agree. Just copy and paste.


To: crenshawnorth@metro.net

Re: Comments for Crenshaw northern extension

After reviewing the three existing options, La Brea, Fairfax, and hybrid, I strongly urge Metro to add a fourth option: La Brea plus Santa Monica spur.

The hybrid option is fundamentally flawed because it mixed the east-west travel corridor on Santa Monica Blvd with the general north-south direction of the Crenshaw line. This will result in long travel time and will not best serve either the east-west nor the north-south travelers. In light of City of West Hollywood's strong commitment to the line, I believe it is in the best interest of all parties to acknowledge that hybrid option is a poor compromise to the forced marriage of two different travel corridors.

The La Brea plus Santa Monica spur concept acknowledges the reality that these are two separate travel corridors. Instead of continuing the flawed hybrid compromise, there should be a vision for what the rail network could look like in the future. A spur line on Santa Monica Blvd traveling from Hollywood /Highland to Santa Monica/Robertson will satisfy the City of West Hollywood's desire for Metro service within its borders. The spur can operate in conjunction with the La Brea train and not unnecessarily impact the service quality of the Crenshaw line via La Brea. There are further benefits to this concept as the line can be extended in the future south/west to purple line station at La Cienega or Century City; and east towards Downtown LA via Santa Monica blvd. And as proposed, the La Brea plus Santa Monica spur concept has roughly the same amount of track mileage as the hybrid option but offers significantly faster travel time between Hollywood/Highland and LAX and beyond.


Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Name