HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5701  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2021, 9:17 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 660
Im excited about the Vancouver Skytrain like proposal in alternative 4. Automated "heavy rail" high capacity option w possible Linear Induction Motor propelled cars and route with some portions of above grade for sunshine... It shifts the driver from sitting in a forward cab to roaming the train, validating fares, ensuring customer service and security. And, if they chose to go with the linear induction proposal, it has ZERO mechanical moving parts.. ie, 99% on time trains and rare chance of breakdowns... Example, Vancouver Skytrain Expo, Millennium Lines.

I just rode the red line on tuesday and it was full of foolishness... again!!!

Last edited by hughfb3; Dec 6, 2021 at 6:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5702  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2021, 9:26 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,353
LA Metro's ridership is up to about 70% of pre-pandemic counts. Meanwhile, NYC's bus and rail ridership is only up to 56-58% of pre-pandemic ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5703  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2021, 10:18 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
You know, I admittedly prefer the traditional heavy rail proposals, especially the ones that have a stop directly on the UCLA campus and over to Wilshire, etc. But as I went through the proposals on Urbanize LA (easy to read format), I was surprised to discover that the proposed automated monorail proposals include consists that would carry just as many passengers as the traditional heavy rail consists proposed, and also ran slightly more frequently at peak (every two minutes v. every two-and-a-half). That said, my experience of riding BART for decades leads me to prefer off-the-shelf transit technology for economy and availability of parts, as with Metro's other heavy rail lines.
It doesn't provide the same capacity. That's one of the BYD dishonest sleight of hand that we've already covered in this thread and other forums. For BYD to match the capacity of the heavy rail will require them to run longer trains but their bid has short platforms and short trains - BYD's proposal is 14k ppd and max out at 19k ppd with 8 car trains (which requires longer platforms). The heavy rail project will have max of 27k ppd without additional capital costs to extend the platforms. Given the BYD base line proposal is for the short platform, it cannot physically meet the max capacity, which means the initial capacity (14k riders) is the max capacity... that's worst than some light rail train.

Go here if you want to read about it some more: https://transittalk.proboards.com/post/41464/thread


Quote:
A technicality perhaps, but the route will go through/over/under the Santa Monica Mountains. The Hollywood Hills are a specific part of the same range, but farther east.

The one good thing about the monorail proposals over the Sepulveda Pass are that riders would be able to see sunlight. A million years ago, I had to take a freeway-running bus over Sepulveda pass to get to and from college, and while that obviously sucked overall, the sunshine was a silver lining.
I think I rather get to where I want to go rather than watch the sun and then walk a mile to transfer to a bus that will take me the rest of the way. The monorail runs almost entirely over the 405 freeway instead of actual place people will want to go in West LA. It's absurd to even consider it.

Last edited by bzcat; Dec 23, 2021 at 10:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5704  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2021, 4:12 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,011
Do we have estimates of the ridership of the Sepulveda pass line?
__________________
I'm no longer allowed to post about Chicago or microstudios.

Last edited by SFBruin; Dec 25, 2021 at 5:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5705  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2021, 12:58 PM
DirectionNorth's Avatar
DirectionNorth DirectionNorth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
Do we have estimates of the ridership of the Sepulveda pass line?

It seems to me that, without adequate feeder routes, the line wouldn't have exceptional ridership as compared with lines like the Purple or Red lines.
Apparently, the ridership will be between 122,000 and 137,000 daily, in 2042. I found this here: https://urbanize.city/la/post/compar...%20conditions.

However, I could not confirm this on the Metro website.

As for feeder routes, there are already some: the future ESFV, the G Line, the Wilshire Subway, and the E Line. I hear that there are only going to be 8 (?) stations, so bus feeders aren't probably going to be very large in the grand scheme of things.

Sincerely, a non LA resident.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5706  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2021, 5:03 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,011
Ah, makes sense.
__________________
I'm no longer allowed to post about Chicago or microstudios.

Last edited by SFBruin; Dec 25, 2021 at 5:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5707  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2021, 6:56 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
Sepulveda line will have plenty of feeders from day 1:

Metrolink (Ventura line)
ESFV light rail (Van Nuys Blvd)
Orange line
Metro 150/240 (Ventura Blvd - one of the busiest bus corridor in the country)
Metro 234 (Sepulveda Blvd)
Purple line/Metro 720 (Wilshire Blvd)
Big Blue Bus (multiple lines - almost the entire system will feed one of the four West LA stations: UCLA, Wilshire/Westwood, Sepulveda/Santa Monica, or Sepulveda/Expo stations)
Expo line

Also Metro's ridership estimates in previous EIRs were comically low. Take the Expo line for example, it reached 2030 ridership only 9 or 10 months after opening. Sepulveda line will probably exceed EIR estimates within a few months.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5708  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2021, 10:06 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,235
Here is an excellent photo I found on Flickr of the San Bernardino Arrow rail vehicles being delivered.


Via Kevin Bleich.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5709  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2021, 12:23 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,424
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Here is an excellent photo I found on Flickr of the San Bernardino Arrow rail vehicles being delivered.
Nice. A half sized Trinity Metro TexRail train.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5710  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2022, 11:30 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
Update on the Vermont (South) Corridor from November. Full presentation here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3v4qdl26t...ty+Meeting.pdf

For LRT, three stations will be grade-separated. Elevated is an option, but the recommendation is subway. I don't understand why Metro is willing to consider elevated LRT, but not elevated HRT. Anyway, when combined with the North Corridor, the LRT alternative has 7 stations* that aren't subway as compared to the HRT alternative, but the LRT alternative has one extra station proposed at Redondo Beach Blvd. Seems idiotic to skip over a major arterial plus PCH (to serve Kaiser Permanente), yet have two stations at 182nd and 190th Streets. But I do like that it opens the possibility for an extension through Wilmington to CSULB.

My preference is for there to be a continuous Red Line from the SFV to the South Bay, but since there's no dedicated funding, I THINK I'd be in favor of having this as a stand-alone line provided it can be built quicker through a PPP and provisions are made to eventually join the two lines.

*Three of them are Florence, Manchester, and Century, which I think there'd be calls for grade-separation at those busy intersections like we've seen with the Crenshaw Line. In that case, there's no advantage to LRT. You save money for the South Corridor, but you completely eliminate the possibility of ever having a continuous cross-county line. Imagine a college student in NoHo being able to have a one-seat ride to CSULB.







__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5711  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2022, 11:41 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,590
Glad they're pushing for underground. Nine times out of ten elevated is the hideous low hanging fruit.
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5712  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2022, 12:18 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
^ In this case, an elevated viaduct would actually improve aesthetics on Vermont. But like everything, it boils down to politics and social equity. I really don't see how they can justify making any portion of the South Corridor subway, but have trains run at-grade south of Gage along the North Corridor.

More generally, I think elevated rail provides some scenery in addition to cost savings, but subway configuration are superior in quality. Excessive heat waves force trains to run at slower speeds to prevent damage to tracks and/or overhead lines, which obviously cause delays and make service less reliable. I also think subways psychologically project an image of greater speeds and feel more "big city."
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5713  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2022, 12:35 AM
DirectionNorth's Avatar
DirectionNorth DirectionNorth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
^ In this case, an elevated viaduct would actually improve aesthetics on Vermont. But like everything, it boils down to politics and social equity. I really don't see how they can justify making any portion of the South Corridor subway, but have trains run at-grade south of Gage along the North Corridor.

More generally, I think elevated rail provides some scenery in addition to cost savings, but subway configuration are superior in quality. Excessive heat waves force trains to run at slower speeds to prevent damage to tracks and/or overhead lines, which obviously cause delays and make service less reliable. I also think subways psychologically project an image of greater speeds and feel more "big city."
It's always about politics.

If the road is wide enough and/or the area is low density, it should be fine for elevated.

I wonder how cut-and-cover construction would do?

Elevated rail could theoretically be covered, and I've proposed this solution on other forums. However, that would be very vulnerable to NIMBYs, and is probably not the best look aesthetically.

I don't think that LA really needs a big city feel - it's not like it's a middle-of-nowhere, you're literally the cultural center of the US. Decisions should be made on transit-quality, and while underground does probably provide for somewhat higher transit quality, the costs might be excessive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5714  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2022, 12:41 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
^ I think LA already feels like a big city. Perhaps I should've used the term "urban" instead.

Glad you brought up cut-and-cover. How do the costs compare to tunnel boring? I feel like Vermont is so wide in some parts that it could even accommodate a third track for express service. Cut-and-cover would certainly open up that possibility.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5715  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2022, 5:41 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,026
HRT from Wilshire down to the Century Freeway (a continuation of the existing Vermont subway), then transferring to LRT and traveling on the same road southward toward the harbor a little weird (in a way that changing to the existing green line would not be, since it travels east/west). I kind of wonder if this hiccup in the mind affects people like us (map and transit nerds) more so than the general transit-riding public.

That said, a continuation of the existing red line south from Wilshire 15~ miles would be a real game-changer since many low-income riders already make at least one transfer per trip, but the long 1-seat ride would remove one transfer and so save at least 10 minutes between the lack of a best-case scenario physical transfer plus the increased speed of the train.

The blue line to Long Beach is pretty nice but we all know that if it had been built as HRT, with full grade-separation, the thing could be so much more competitive for choice riders. So they can either spend the money here to build something transformative or they can build another blue line - an improvement over buses, but not a transformative asset for the region.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Jan 19, 2022 at 1:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5716  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2022, 6:25 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,011
I feel that a harbor line should connect to downtown, via a Flower Street (ideally Fig, but that ship has sailed...) tunnel.

It seems to me that that would make transfers easier for riders who are not going to the part of Vermont between Exposition and Wilshire.
__________________
I'm no longer allowed to post about Chicago or microstudios.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5717  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2022, 2:11 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I feel that a harbor line should connect to downtown, via a Flower Street (ideally Fig, but that ship has sailed...) tunnel.

It seems to me that that would make transfers easier for riders who are not going to the part of Vermont between Exposition and Wilshire.
If the downtown connector had been built as a 4-track tunnel it would have opened many future possibilities. The same, of course, could also be said for the original heavy rail subway.

I have never been able to find official performance figures on high-platform HRT versus low-platform LRT cars. I trust that traditional high-platform HRT trains can accelerate/decelerate significantly faster than modern low-platform LRT trains, but by how much? What is the wear/tear on HRT motors and other components, which can be much larger, as opposed to much smaller LRT components? What specific compromises are made in LRT component design?

On the long existing, u/c, and planned lines in Los Angeles, the improved acceleration/deceleration times might make a decisive difference, even if the top speed is the same, since a longer distance between sequential stations can be transited at the top speed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5718  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2022, 4:41 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,745
This is all pretty wishful thinking, right? Measure R only includes funding for BRT on Vermont, and only between Wilshire and the 105. Metro's study of rail in the corridor, or south extension to Wilmington, is purely for the purpose of future-proofing.

I assume this is part of the reasoning for a bored tunnel alignment - if you build a cut-and-cover tunnel with an existing BRT line above, you basically have to remove the BRT line for the duration of construction. Bored tunnel avoids those impacts.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5719  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2022, 2:19 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
If the downtown connector had been built as a 4-track tunnel it would have opened many future possibilities.
That would have been a good idea. Oh well...
__________________
I'm no longer allowed to post about Chicago or microstudios.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5720  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2022, 7:03 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 197
Not a fan of underground. I much prefer elevated, then level grade, then underground. I love the gold line especially as it goes through neighborhoods to see shops around, farmers market, different nights all the way to Azusa. The flyovers of the LA river is cool.

The Expo line is cool especially the elevated sections starting at LA brea station towards Santa Monica. Even the blue line has cool aerial sections.

Outside of LA, I like the elevated sections of elevated on Bart, on nyc boroughs, Seoul, Tokyo, Bangkok, Paris.

I prefer an elevated Vermont rail for the same reason. Most homes and businesses are 2 maybe 3 floors or less making the train views all over.the region.

I hate the subway, nothing to look at except the things people are doing wierd.
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 5:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.