HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4681  
Old Posted May 15, 2018, 11:11 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
My issue is moreso with consistency itself where San Vicente is concerned. You and others have said you think any route would be fully grade-separated, which is possible. If it isn’t fully grade-separated, though, then we run into Expo’s problems all over again. I.e. if it’s not a consistent X+5 but X+5 one day and X+20 the next and “a train hit a car on the tracks so now you have to take a bus bridge” the day after that.

That doesn’t mean no one will take it, but it does mean delay and inconsistency become inevitable - which in turn means people will not view it as a reliable option. These decisions do have consequences, is my point.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4682  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 12:32 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eightball View Post
Yerp. Never forget they killed decent nighttime service/frequencies to save 4 million dollars! 4 million! That's nothing
The 20 min headways after 8 drives me insane. 5 min headways all day / all night. Stick to it for a couple years, advertise it and watch the people use it more often. Not that hard. They are so stupid sometimes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4683  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 7:26 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I think the best option is running the Crenshaw Line up La Brea, with a separate line running down Santa Monica Blvd before turning south down La Cienega. But let's just fund another Gold Line extension to San Bernardino instead.
Yeah because fuck the people in foothills. They don't deserve to see any returns on the their investments they are having to pay for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4684  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 12:44 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Yeah because fuck the people in foothills. They don't deserve to see any returns on the their investments they are having to pay for.
It's almost like building a light-rail system that functions more like commuter rail directly next to an existing commuter rail line is a poor investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4685  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 8:34 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Yeah because fuck the people in foothills. They don't deserve to see any returns on the their investments they are having to pay for.
Do you actually believe that the density in the San Dimas-Claremont area produces enough sales tax to pay for the "investment" in a second rail corridor in this area? More so than in the heart of urban LA? Because that's just silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4686  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 9:29 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
Another great SBLA editorial calling Metro out on their BS:

https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/1...pe-of-project/

All-tunnel or all-elevated? WTF? Have they ever heard of trenching?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4687  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 11:47 PM
NSMP NSMP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Another great SBLA editorial calling Metro out on their BS:

https://la.streetsblog.org/2018/05/1...pe-of-project/

All-tunnel or all-elevated? WTF? Have they ever heard of trenching?
Also the cost they list for elevated is ludicrous. Even the cost they list for underground is based on purple line costs, which means it is likely far too high
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4688  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 12:12 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Do you actually believe that the density in the San Dimas-Claremont area produces enough sales tax to pay for the "investment" in a second rail corridor in this area? More so than in the heart of urban LA? Because that's just silly.
This is unnecessarily harsh. The population of mid-city LA is about 400,000. The population of the communities around the second phase Gold Line extension is 200,000. From purely a sales-tax perspective, it makes about equal sense to build a second line through mid-city as it does to build a first line through Eastern SGV/Pomona Valley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4689  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 1:33 AM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
This is unnecessarily harsh. The population of mid-city LA is about 400,000. The population of the communities around the second phase Gold Line extension is 200,000. From purely a sales-tax perspective, it makes about equal sense to build a second line through mid-city as it does to build a first line through Eastern SGV/Pomona Valley.
Fair enough, my language was unnecessary and I didn't mean it as a personal insult. My apologies to plutonicpanda.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4690  
Old Posted May 17, 2018, 5:18 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 660
Hey all,

So a few of us have been inspired by the mayor's talk of a monorail through the sepulveda pass. We were curious that he would open Metro up to a tech other than Heavy and Light Rail, and that got us excited! We are looking for other like minded people in the community to join us in supporting the mayor and a tech that will allow us to travel fast and efficiently while saving us billions of dollars.

Red=Induction Motor, Blue=Steel Load Bearing Wheels, Yellow=Steel Guidance Wheels



Through our research we have found a rail technology that; from its inception, is meant to be elevated and uses existing technology. It has 4 steel wheels and is powered by an induction motor (similar to Vancouver skytrain and JFK airtrain) that gives it a slight lift [SERAPHIM Motor]. Because of the slight lift and because the motor is in the track, there is no need for the train to have friction with the rails. The wheels are used only as guide and not for propulsion, so it takes 90% of the train's load off of the track structure, thereby allowing the construction costs to be significantly lower and allowing us to construct most beams and pylons off site... greatly reducing construction time. We've found that traditional monorail has a max speed of 55mph; which in our opinion, isn't good enough. The train we are introducing can go to speeds in excess of 100mph. It is a mix/hybrid between a steel-wheel Metro subway, a Vancouver Skytrain, and a monorail, so we are calling it the HyTrain/HyRail. We realize there needs to be flexibility between the grades which is why some light rail needs to be underground and some heavy rail need to be elevated, and we also believe that if any modality is going over 20% out of their engineered grade, that there gets to be an evaluation on whether it truly meets the needs. As we run out of abandoned rail tracks that we can re-open with surface light rail; We believe that Los Angeles needs to "Graduate to the 3rd Grade." Meaning... we believe each transportation option should be engineered for the specific grade to maximize cost, speed, and efficiency..., and with elevated costs per mile ranging from ~$39-$72 million per mile, HyTrain is our answer. We believe

Heavy Rail=Underground=Below Grade
Light Rail=Surface=At Grade
HyRail/HyTrain=Elevated=Above Grade

1.Heavy Rail should be designated for Below Grade, unless it has a completely uninterrupted corridor at grade [Vermont Red line south the exception]
2. Light Rail should primarily be used for at grade surfaces where the right of way allows it to have signal priority through most intersections and where the maximum speed isn't affected by surface interactions.
3. We need an elevated solution to the corridors that are too dense for surface light rail and that are not dense enough for subterranean Heavy Rail
4. We need to look at areas where we can create a true Quad Track Express service across great distances even when right of ways are limited... thereby allowing metro a new revenue stream from using a premium charge for Express
5. We believe Metro needs to figure out how to fully service the Rams/Chargers stadium, Forum, and possible Clippers arena in Inglewood before a traffic nightmare engulfs us
6. We believe that the "problem" of introducing another rail tech that happens to be automated to LA's existing structure is solved by keeping 3-5 min headways along all corridors and reducing the amount of interlining... making a transfer to heavy, light, and Hy Rail quick and easy
7. We believe that with automation, the train driver position can be repositioned to a train conductor position whose job is to validate fares, ensure safety of patrons, and give a sense of security on the trains
8. We believe LA's vista are among its biggest assets and should be accessible to the public [not just the wealthy who can afford a house in the hills or in a high rise]... beautiful example is the expo line's elevated sections

In 1999, This type of train was selected by the state of Colorado for a line from Denver to the mountains. The tech was created and tested in Spain and this particular corridor was engineered by AECOM and Meneren. It would have began construction..., but just like in LA in the '90's and early 2000's... interests came in and they widened a freeway instead at the last minute, rather than build a train. Thankfully for us in LA, The engineering was complete and we have accessed it. We have spoken many times with Meneren CEO and are in talks with AECOM for our vision. We have spreadsheet and have already calculated the costs with inflation for all related corridors, and it will save Metro BILLIONS of dollars if we were to apply this tech in corridors where possible... thereby allowing us to complete much needed 2040 and later projects like the Vermont corridor Subway-El to the Green line, and the Crenshaw line to Hollywood, and the Green line to Norwalk.

Here is our vision...
PHASE 1




PHASE 1: Imagine going from LAX to Sylmar or Downtown LA in 15 min!!!
Quad Track and combine the Sepulveda Pass and Van Nuys corridor. Create both Local and Express service to from the Valley to LAX. Charge regular metro fare for local service and a premium for Express service getting people from Sylmar to LAX in 15 min. Create a PPP to construct this line by leveraging the added revenue from the express service $15-$20 per ride. Based on estimates from Colorado corridor which also went through mountainous terrain, we are estimating a per mile cost of $56-$72 million per mile to build four tracks along the 30 mile corridor from Sylmar to LAX. Total estimated cost... $1.68-$2.16 Billion

--Create a PPP to construct a Quad Track with both local and $$ premium express service from LAX to Downtown LA Union Station with a dual track spur to South Park/Pico Station, Convention Center/Staples. Service the Inglewood entertainment distict by leaving LAX along Century bl, then turning north along Prairie, before following the Harbor Subdivision to DTLA. Thereby linking LAX to the convention center with express service. Leverage express revenue $15-20 per ride, to create PPP financing. Estimated per mile cost for 18.19 mile corridor with Quad track is $56-$72 million per mile. Total estimated cost... $1.01-$1.31 Billion.

Total funding available from Measure R,M,Local state other, for the Sepulveda pass alone... $9.7 Billion. This saves us big time $$.

PHASE 2


PHASE 2:
Leverage technology to fix the West Hollywood and Gold line east side problems as well as create rail to Silicon Beach. With dual track Hytrain costs of $36-$56 Million per mile, we save tons and allow expansions not currently funded under current trends

Instead of making the C shaped, 2 prong extensions of the eastside gold line, extend the Gold line only along the 60. Create a new line from Downtown to Whittier along Whittier bl or Washington. Total funds available for both alignments of Gold lines... $6 Billion. Cost for 60 Light Rail $3 Billion. Cost for HyTrain from DTLA to Whittier with Dual Tracks for 13 miles...$511-$778 Million... saving over $2 Billion

In place of building the meandering S of the Crenshaw line up san Vicente to West Hollywood, create a new dual track line from Downtown LA's pico station along Pico to San Vicente and into West Hollywood with possible extension along Santa Monica bl back to La Brea. Total costs for new corridor at 10.5 miles... $386-$588 Million

Substitute BRT for HyTrain along the heavily trafficked Silicon Beach corridor of Lincoln bl. and use excess funds from Sepulveda pass corridor to build a Venice bl HyTrain to Venice Beach

PHASE 3


PHASE 3:
Use the Billions of dollars saved to expedite important corridors that are either funded in the 2040's and beyond, and to create new corridors only thought of in concept. Like the Vermont Corridor Subway, Glendale Corridor, Green line to Long Beach... etc


Our Mission: To add HyRail [HYT] into the list of options considered by Metro along with BRT, LRT, HRT, Commuter Rail when analyzing current and future high capacity corridors.

Again, we are looking for like minded people to join us. If you have any experience and/or would just like to join us, please DM me.

Meneren Website for info
#HyTrain #HyRail #3rdLA #ThirdLosAngeles #3rdGradeLA

Last edited by hughfb3; May 17, 2018 at 6:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4691  
Old Posted May 18, 2018, 9:39 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
^ I don't know why Garcetti even mentioned the idea of a monorail. All the monorails in the world (at least the ones I know of) are run on elevated viaducts. This entire Sepulveda corridor from the SFV down to LAX will be entirely subway, so we can eliminate talk of a monorail/maglev. The RFP also stated a desire to investigate proven technologies, so that also precludes anything innovative like a hyperloop.

My hope is for a fully-automated heavy rail line (see Paris Metro's Line 1) that has the potential to operate extended hours at high frequencies. This would probably save operating costs too, something the private entity would obviously be very interested in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4692  
Old Posted May 18, 2018, 9:53 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Also the cost they list for elevated is ludicrous. Even the cost they list for underground is based on purple line costs, which means it is likely far too high
I forgot about the PPP, the two unsolicited proposals, and 28/28. Now I kind of understand where they're coming from. But I wish they would just cut out the passive aggressiveness and say that they don't want to delay the project or jeopardize the PPP.

LRT over HRT isn't completely terrible, especially if they choose option E.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4693  
Old Posted May 19, 2018, 1:17 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,921
Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4694  
Old Posted May 19, 2018, 4:36 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 660
This is a very proven technology using steel wheels and an induction motor... nothing new here. We've calculated the costs for the system above and the per mile costs are significantly lower than Heavy Rail and most LA light rail... It could save us anywhere from $6-10 BILLION Dollars from Measure's M/R, state, federal taxes. It can transport 40,000 passengers per hour at speeds up to 100mph! Imagine if we could replace a few routes with this elevated system, we could use the extra money to complete the Purple line to Santa Monica, the Red Line down Vermont, and the Crenshaw line could be completed up La Brea to Hollywood AND have a completely separate line to satisfy West Hollywood along Santa Monica bl.

Last edited by hughfb3; Jun 12, 2018 at 2:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4695  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 1:15 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
^ I don't know why Garcetti even mentioned the idea of a monorail. All the monorails in the world (at least the ones I know of) are run on elevated viaducts. This entire Sepulveda corridor from the SFV down to LAX will be entirely subway, so we can eliminate talk of a monorail/maglev. The RFP also stated a desire to investigate proven technologies, so that also precludes anything innovative like a hyperloop.

My hope is for a fully-automated heavy rail line (see Paris Metro's Line 1) that has the potential to operate extended hours at high frequencies. This would probably save operating costs too, something the private entity would obviously be very interested in.
If you want to save money, it would be a light metro more like Vancouver's Canada Line (Bombardier system) or the Copenhagen Metro (Hitachi/AnsaldoBreda system). Short 4-car trains, small stations = less digging. The capacity is still roughly the same as a full metro line, because the automated trains can come every 90 seconds. Outside of gadgetbahns like the hyperloop, the light automated metro is probably the latest promising idea in mass transit... despite being a decades-old idea, it's only in the last 20-30 years that cities have started to build such systems outside of closed zones like airports and convention centers.

However - it's totally possible to build monorails underground. Why wouldn't it be? The problem is that the same track design which makes elevated sections so slender and cheap to build turns into a problem underground, because you actually need a larger tunnel to accommodate the full height of the track beam plus a safety clearance. That translates into a lot of wasted space inside the tunnel as compared to a traditional subway, so virtually all the advantages of a monorail system evaporate. However, if you had to bore a short tunnel as part of a larger elevated system (to cross a hill or mountain, for example, or to cross through a historic district) it would certainly be possible.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4696  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 1:37 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,387
Bombardier had nothing to do with the Canada Line. The rolling stock was from a company called Hyundai-Rotem and the infrastructure was by SNC-Lavalin
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4697  
Old Posted May 24, 2018, 10:22 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 373
Metro board voted to move forward on WASB study with just 2 northern options.

WASB alternative F eliminated (good!)

E (meh) and G (best of the lot) will continue to DEIR.

Board did not vote to include any heavy rail options such as one proposed by StreetsblogLA to extend Red line to WASB.

http://thesource.metro.net/2018/05/2...la-light-rail/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4698  
Old Posted May 24, 2018, 11:15 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
I think those are the best two. I personally am leaning towards E, but can completely understand why G is good also, for different reasons. I wish we could have both.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4699  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 9:48 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,539
I will bet anything that option E (the more conservative of the two) is chosen, if only because it’d be so typical of Metro. But even option G feels extremely forced.

Sign of the times, I guess. Everything these days is bad news. Or am I just having “one of those” days?

Last edited by Quixote; May 25, 2018 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4700  
Old Posted May 26, 2018, 5:20 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,738
There's really no network consequences to either Alt E or Alt G. With the realignment of Gold, Blue and Expo after the Regional Connector opens, it seems like both Alt E and Alt G would offer a direct connection between WSAB trains and Gold/Blue/Red/Purple, with Expo getting absorbed into the new Gold. Each option offers the same connections to other Metro lines. plus a bonus connection to Blue at Washington.

On the other hand, only Alt E would connect WSAB riders to the bus, Amtrak and Metrolink options at Union Station...

I dont really see the appeal of Alt G (what's up with the weird Pershing Square option?) Even if you're considering future extensions, it seems like Alt E is better in that regard, as it would (sorta) point in the direction of a Sunset line or a line to Glendale.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; May 26, 2018 at 5:31 AM.
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 4:28 PM.

     

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