LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Quixote]

^ It's in the links I provided.

From the Scoping Summary Report, UCLA (clearly the most important agency stakeholder), had this to say:

The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) stated that it supports smart construction of the Project to better connect the Westside and the San Fernando Valley as well as other Metro lines. The University believes that the Project must include a station on the UCLA campus and a seamless connection to the Metro D Line Westwood/UCLA Station. The University stated that it opposes Alternative 1 because the use of a surface street shuttle bus to arrive at UCLA would substantially increase travel time, and it opposes Alternative 2 because the use of an above-ground people mover would increase travel time and improperly assumes the use of UCLA property and access to federal land on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard. UCLA stated that it has concerns about Alternative 3 and would oppose it unless it is significantly amended so that the route runs underground all the way from the Getty Center through UCLA and back to I-405 and provides a direct connection to the Metro D Line Westwood/UCLA Station.

UCLA stated that it believes that Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would have the greatest potential to attract riders from automobiles by connecting riders seamlessly to other Metro lines and providing easier and faster access to UCLA and that it believes Alternatives 5 and 6 would especially minimize impacts on the communities through which they run.

UCLA requested that Metro analyze transit equity for each alternative, consider how the alternatives would impact various neighborhoods, analyze ridership estimates and travel time differences among the alternatives, study the comprehensive cost of providing mobility from the San Fernando Valley to UCLA (including any bus shuttle operation that may be assumed to be provided by UCLA), provide a transparent methodology for the calculation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, and incorporate a calculation of transportation insecurity into any benefit-cost analysis to account for social exclusion risk factors that disenable travel by low-income individuals. The university also requested that the Project not be studied as a stand-alone investment since interconnectivity to existing transit assets would ensure maximum return on investment.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3v4qdl26t...nav_tracking=1

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Fantastic updates! Let the monorail die! Alt 6 please!

[Quixote]

The most significant thing is that the monorail options are all but dead. 93% support heavy rail. The people have spoken.

[Busy Bee]

Things are looking up...

[Quixote]

The Alternative 6 alignment would largely be a straight tunnel underneath the Santa Monica Mountains, which I would have to think is not an insignificant cost factor. My only disappointment with A6 is the SMB station would be at the West LA Civic Center (either at Corinth or Purdue, rather than Federal like I had hoped). Still, it would be a game-changer for dense West LA / Sawtelle.


https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...175168/photo/3

[Quixote]

I forgot that Alternatives 4 and 5 (Bechtel's proposal) would use single-bore tunneling, and because the trains would be much shorter, so would the construction costs associated with the station boxes.

The idea of 3-car trains (initially), which would actually be shorter than our current 3-car LRT trains, has me a bit uneasy. Peak headways of 2.5 minutes is also nothing to write home about... other systems around the world deliver more frequent service (and longer trains to boot).

In the redacted technical proposal released last year (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ip41fut92...82%29.pdf?dl=0), Bechtel states:

• 24/7 operations will be possible, if necessary
• Peak frequencies would be 2.5 minutes, off-peak 5 minutes and 10 minutes (lame)
• "Ultimate capacity" is 27,200 pph per direction, with 4-car trains every 90 seconds
• 4-car trains would be 288-feet long, platforms 280-feet long (our LRT station platforms are 270-feet long for comparison)

I think it's not insignificant that Metro put the 6-car "legacy" option on the table. Per the Scoping Report, Alternatives 5 and 6 have the same amount of support.

[Quixote]

This is what we'd get with Alternative 4 or 5:

• Video Link

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The Alternative 6 alignment would largely be a straight tunnel underneath the Santa Monica Mountains, which I would have to think is not an insignificant cost factor. My only disappointment with A6 is the SMB station would be at the West LA Civic Center (either at Corinth or Purdue, rather than Federal like I had hoped). Still, it would be a game-changer for dense West LA / Sawtelle.

The West LA Civic Center is a good temporary terminus. In addition to the planned renovation, that area has been steadily replacing single family houses with four and five story residential buildings for decades. The areas east of the 405 are less developed and lower density.

In any case, whatever alternative is chosen, eventually the line should extend south to LAX.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The Alternative 6 alignment would largely be a straight tunnel underneath the Santa Monica Mountains, which I would have to think is not an insignificant cost factor. My only disappointment with A6 is the SMB station would be at the West LA Civic Center (either at Corinth or Purdue, rather than Federal like I had hoped). Still, it would be a game-changer for dense West LA / Sawtelle.

Alternative 6 calls for dual bore tunnels, which due to US fire safety requirements, requires manual mining of emergency escape cross-passages every 800 feet, ventilation shafts to the surface every 6,000 feet, and manually mined crossover sections, which are significant cost factors. The ventilation shaft issue (and driver-operated trains) probably plays into why Alternative 6 has 4-minute headways—you can only have 1 train occupy a ventilation zone at a time.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Major updates, courtesy of numble on Twitter:



https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...Cjna-n29YqAAAA



https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...Cj_aOGvdYqAAAA



https://twitter.com/numble/status/15...C97eqdnNUqAAAA

Thanks for posting. Very informative to hear the what's so regarding these projects. One of the best things about riding the Expo line is the elevated stations that give the public access to expansive views of the entire basing; which is why I support alternative 4 with Linear Induction Motor powered "Heavy Rail." It looks like they would start with 4 car trains but can be expanded at a later date, but the station bore would still be built, just inaccessible. I dont know if this is new since 2020; but I am loving how accessible Metro has made all these documents... I'm geeking out perusing all these pages

Does anyone know why the spur for the Crenshaw north was dismissed? Was it only because of the "complicated wye?"

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This is what we'd get with Alternative 4 or 5:

• Video Link

Looks fine to me!

In all honesty it would likely be similar to Honolulu's stations. Sepulveda doesn't have enough width to place fare control in a stationhouse at ground level, so the stations will need an elevated mezzanine and the tracks fairly high.

El makes sense in certain areas of LA - where the rail has its own ROW, or where the street has a wide median like Vermont - but I think it will suck on Sepulveda.

[badrunner]

I will withhold my celebration until I get 100% confirmation that the monorail proposal is dead.

[dktshb]

In LA this weekend and rode the Red Line from 7th street to Union Station and it was a complete disaster. Only a handful of terrified people on the train at 7 PM on a saturday when it used to be full at that time. A guy in a wheelchair with one leg screamed the whole way at everybody on the train from when I got on to when I got off. He was also spitting on the windows. Then there was the drugged out homeless man walking up and down the train pretending he was filming people shoving his broken phone in everyone's face. The gold line was a little better in that there were human beings riding along with a few of the walking dead, but the train was littered with food wrappings and the floor was sticky from spilled sodas. At least the homeless were all so drugged out they were asleep not bothering anybody. LA really needs to get its act together and clean up the transit and do it fast. I would discourage anybody form taking the red line, which is a total shame as it used to be a real convenient way getting to between Hollywood and Downtown.

So is there anything in the works to clean this up? They had messages constantly playing on the trains to contact metro police if somebody is bothering you and at one of the stations on the Gold Line there were police officers who talked to the train conductor asking if everything was okay, but this is inadequate. There really needs to be a hard line zero tolerance approach to the crazy.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Looks fine to me!

El makes sense in certain areas of LA - where the rail has its own ROW, or where the street has a wide median like Vermont - but I think it will suck on Sepulveda.

This is true, which brings up the question of what are our priorities and what goals are they aligned with... ergo... what type of city do we want?... Sepulveda in this area has 9 lanes of pure automobile oriented infrastructure on a surface street... 3 full through-Driving lanes on each side; in addition to 1 (sometimes 2) Turn lanes in the middle, and parallel Parking lanes on each side. Its a matter or perspective, perception and priorities.

From another perspective in a different time... Sepulveda could be envisioned as a 6 lane surface street with 3 lane spaces of wide tree/grass-lined median... again... In another time... but that "median" has been paved over by 20th century post-war priorities. In another time space, Vermont's current 9 lane with median could be a fully paved over 12 lane surface street (like the 2nd pic below) and we would be making the same argument that there is not space enough for an elevated train

Neither is right or wrong, we just get to ask ourselves how we see our city newly and take a good look together, not from the past, but from the future we wish to create

P-Parking Lane; D-Driving Lane; T-Turn Lane

P-D-D-D-T-D-D-D-P

Sepulveda at Victory (9 LANES)



Other time/spaces

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Looks fine to me!

In all honesty it would likely be similar to Honolulu's stations. Sepulveda doesn't have enough width to place fare control in a stationhouse at ground level, so the stations will need an elevated mezzanine and the tracks fairly high.

El makes sense in certain areas of LA - where the rail has its own ROW, or where the street has a wide median like Vermont - but I think it will suck on Sepulveda.

I'd be okay with Alternative 4 because in addition to the automation and potential for 90-second headways, it establishes a precedent for elevated heavy rail that we need for Vermont. Alternative 5 is just a fully underground version of Alternative 4. If they were proposing a capacity for 6-car trains, then A5 would be easier to swallow.

All heavy rail alternatives have an underground alignment south of Ventura Blvd., so you don't have to worry about an el along Sepulveda (for phase 1).

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by numble

Alternative 6 calls for dual bore tunnels, which due to US fire safety requirements, requires manual mining of emergency escape cross-passages every 800 feet, ventilation shafts to the surface every 6,000 feet, and manually mined crossover sections, which are significant cost factors. The ventilation shaft issue (and driver-operated trains) probably plays into why Alternative 6 has 4-minute headways—you can only have 1 train occupy a ventilation zone at a time.

Then why don't we simply use the same approach as Bechtel's, only with a larger-diameter TBM than those we're using for the Purple Line extension? They do exist.

I'm all for cost savings, but we need a line that won't run into capacity issues once it's extended to LAX (and perhaps points beyond). And the "cost savings" argument (I'm not responding to anything you said, just making a point) goes out the window if you're willing to select A5 over A4. At that point, construction costs are probably closer to A6 and you might as well pull out all the stops.

[Quixote]

Here's a look back at the alternatives for phase 2. This is from 2019, but not much has changed:






First, I forgot that a Sepulveda terminus for phase 1 (which has received more support based on the feedback) doesn't preclude a Centinela option — fantastic.

Centinela stations would be:

• Venice Blvd.
• Culver Blvd.
• Jefferson Blvd.
• Sepulveda/Manchester
• Airport Metro Center

Sepulveda stations would be:

• Venice Blvd.
• Slauson Ave.
• Sepulveda/Manchester
• Airport Metro Center


Given that a Sepulveda terminus is likely to be chosen over Bundy, that would give the Sepulveda alignment a huge leg up — straighter and one fewer station. But the placement of the Venice and Slauson stations suck. I guess we can worry about it later, but the good news is that Centinela is still possible.

[Quixote]

And a refresher on ridership, costs, and travel time estimates for phase 1:

http://media.metro.net/projects_stud..._2019-0724.pdf



What is now Alternative 6 is HRT 1; what's now Alternative 4 is HRT 3:



Costs*:



* Under Bechtel's proposal, HRT 3 (Alternative 4) and the nearly fully underground option (Alternative 5) would use single-bore tunneling and shorter trains, reducing costs. It's still interesting that even with 4 elevated stations using the same technology, Alternatives 4 and 6 would be comparable in costs.

[Quixote]

At the very least, Metro should request that Bechtel propose 450-foot platforms and vehicles with the same width as the Breda and forthcoming CRRC HR 4000 cars. Perhaps (3) double-articulated vehicles measuring 150 feet each. That way even a single unit could deliver sufficient capacity during off-peak periods, especially given the wider width of the vehicle.

[Quixote]

From Bechtel's technical proposal:

STCP has concluded the best tunneling solution for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor is a single-bore tunnel using cut-and-cover stations. We propose to use a smaller vehicle size, which allows us to reduce the internal tunnel diameter to less than 40 feet. The creation of underground space is extremely cost-sensitive to tunnel diameter. Any reduction in overall tunnel diameter has dramatic positive flowdown effects in terms of project cost.

Disadvantages of the single-bore include Contractor familiarity with larger bore TBMs of greater than 50-foot diameter (though this is rapidly changing with the amount of recent large single-bore tunnels that are being planned across North America). STCP has qualified the advantages and disadvantages of the twin-bore vs. single-bore approach in Table 4.3-8.

STCP’s TSC proposes an underground station box approximately 360 feet long for a 280-foot-long four-vehicle platform.

...

The underground station footprint is reduced significantly by using shorter platforms and side platforms with a single bore tunnel. This in turn reduces the station box structure and cut-and-cover excavation and backfill.

...

The shorter station box results in a smaller excavation footprint, and thus, lower construction cost. STCP’s station design also accommodates future system expansion to meet growing demand.

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are they saying the station boxes would be designed to allow for platform extensions beyond 280 feet since they state that the station boxes will be built to accommodate 4-car trains from the start? Or does "meet growing demand" mean expanding to 4-cars from the initial 3-car operations? It's unclear, but I'm inclined to believe the latter.