HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5481  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2021, 9:47 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
EDIT: oops looks like jmecklenborg beat me to it lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
There is no physical track connection for the Expo (E) Line and Crenshaw Line, which uses the same light rail trains. Nor between the Green (C) Line and the Blue (A) Line.
Technically that's false. It's difficult to spot, but it's there. If you're on the 105 heading WB to LAX, as you're approaching the Green (C) Line platforms you can see the in between EB and WB tracks a middle track going down to connect with the Blue (A) Line tracks.

You can also spot the connection if you're standing on the Blue (A) Line platform and looking East (if, of course, there's no NB train obscuring the view lol).
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5482  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 1:30 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 223
More details on the monorail proposal coming out:
- Options for tunnel to UCLA station, one seat ride from Sylmar, interlining with Inglewood Transit Connector (or one seat ride to Inglewood sports arenas), extension to Long Beach
https://twitter.com/AndrewE2121/stat...85826109489153




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5483  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 1:51 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
^ More compelling, but still no.

And $1.4 billion for the extension to LAX?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5484  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 1:55 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 223
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5485  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 2:06 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
^ More compelling, but still no.

And $1.4 billion for the extension to LAX?
They propose cutting off the line at the Orange Line in order to make the cost to LAX $1.4 billion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5486  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 2:11 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
I don't get the dissatisfaction with the MRT proposal. The bulk of the corridor runs through a mountain pass, for which MRT is cheaper. The HRT station at UCLA is nice, but could be substituted with shuttle buses and freeway-running MRT to save $4B.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5487  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 2:33 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
They nailed the UCLA station location. That’s exactly where I would place it.

Numble, what are your general thoughts on the two options taken individually and vis-a-vis each other?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5488  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 2:35 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
They propose cutting off the line at the Orange Line in order to make the cost to LAX $1.4 billion.
I see that. I’m skeptical that they would be able to construct the Westwood-LAX segment for that cheap?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5489  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 2:47 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
They nailed the UCLA station location. That’s exactly where I would place it.

Numble, what are your general thoughts on the two options taken individually and vis-a-vis each other?
I'm trying to get access to all 4 proposals to consider them.

Generally, I don't like the monorail since it is all freeway stations, but I am concerned that board members will be hard to dissuade due to the costs and political lobbying by BYD, the main company in the proposal. 4 years ago, Metro board members already tried to award an electric bus contract to BYD despite Metro staff recommending another bidder (this is very rare, they accept staff recommendations 99.99% of the time).

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...520-story.html
Quote:
BYD paid for Antelope Valley’s transit manager, Len Engel, to spend a week in 2016 visiting its facilities in China, on what officially was a plant inspection. Engel said he did not complete a written report from his trip, nor was he able to provide a copy of the itinerary or other documents detailing how his time was spent there. He was accompanied by six U.S. transit officials whose travel expenses also were covered by BYD. The gift was not reported as required by California ethics laws, until after The Times raised questions.

Six months after the China trip, BYD sent Engel to Ecuador for nearly a week and he gave a 15-minute speech at a three-day conference on urban development and housing. At his recommendation, BYD hired his sister-in-law to an administrative post. Engel said the relative’s hiring bought BYD no favors and that she was “absolutely qualified.”
Quote:
City records show two city departments sought to give BYD contracts without competitive bidding. In both cases when the projects hit snags, agency emails show, managers told the staff that the purchases were “political,” and in one case to work around problems with the bus. The sanitation department was awaiting approval to buy an electric shuttle bus from BYD in May 2017 when The Times sought records on the purchase. The sale immediately stalled and has remained pending for nearly a year. City airport administrators last year sought to expedite a contract to BYD as the sole supplier of airfield buses, until a competitor forced public bidding. Last month the agency awarded a $23-million contract to BYD, declaring the company alone met city specifications.

The mayor’s office encouraged city departments to do business with BYD, suggesting that the airport and Metro consider a joint contract with BYD, and giving agency referrals and support to BYD sales staff. In one case, BYD included in a grant proposal it wrote for the city a commitment for Los Angeles to buy $10 million in electric garbage trucks. Agency emails show sanitation managers balked at the idea of agreeing to buy something they had not yet tested, but the promise was included anyway in the grant application the city filed with the regional air board.
Quote:
When the low scores on its 60-foot bus caused BYD to lose that $60 million sale to competitor New Flyer, BYD launched a lobbying blitz. Emails show BYD turned to Garcetti’s office for support, obtaining private meetings and tapping personal ties to the mayor. Labor leaders aligned with BYD launched attacks on its nonunion competitors. And BYD’s lobbyist focused on Metro director Ara Najarian, sending the former Glendale mayor scripted remarks urging that the contract be given to BYD, his emails show.

In a recent interview, Najarian said he led a failed effort to give the company the contract despite its poor marks due to the jobs BYD promised in Lancaster, not because of the efforts of BYD’s lobbyist, a longtime friend. Najarian said he believes BYD can overcome its production and performance problems, and that its economic engine is a valuable regional asset. It was a conviction he also expressed at a Metro board meeting in 2016, when he argued for a tempered response to the poor performance of BYD’s buses.

“What we don’t want to happen is BYD to feel that they are losing support of this agency or this county,” Najarian said at the time.
https://2urbangirls.com/whats-going-...r-of-commerce/

Quote:
Mayor Butts also had a company infuse $50,000 into the chamber’s coffers to keep them afloat. Enter Chinese based electric bus manufacturer, BYD, who made the deposit.

Last July BYD was awarded a contract for 60 busses by Metro for the Silver Line that was introduced by Glendale Councilman Ara Najarian. LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, LA County Supervisor Kathryn Berger and Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia had “hard conflicts” that prevented them from voting on the matter.

At the Metro Board’s regularly scheduled meeting held July 27, 2017, contracts for both BYD and New Flyer of America were approved. The contract that went to New Flyer of America was a contentious item, as three members wanted to give the contract to BYD. The motion failed and Mayor Butts was absent for the votes pertaining to New Flyer of America.

Now why would a company, with no ties to the city of Inglewood, except for a Metro Board member, put such a substantial amount of money into the Inglewood Chamber of Commerce?

Perhaps favor on future Metro contract votes, when the board has to choose between BYD and New Flyer of America?
BYD also is a sponsor of Move LA (which helped pass Measure M): https://www.movela.org/sponsors
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5490  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 4:27 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,003
Do you think Westood Village would add more towers with these direct connections to Century City and Beverly Hills? Just thinking how easy it will be to travel to these two areas alone will be incredible.

It's possible Beverly Hills will go higher in the future as well no? Not in the shopping areas, but maybe on Wilshire? 20 stories?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5491  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 1:58 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,163
-The UCLA tunnel for the monorail will be more than 3 miles in length. It would feature an underground station unlikely to be significantly less expensive than a traditional subway station. Much of the cost of tunnel construction is from the design/engineering of the tunnel and the one-time setup/teardown of a TBM and plant that manufactures the prefab tunnel segments. So a 6-mile tunnel is most likely only somewhat more expensive than a 3-mile tunnel, and certainly not 2X.

-The traditional HRT plan would interchange with the purple line at Wilshire/Westwood in a much more straightforward way than the monorail, which would involve a lot more walking and stairs/escalators/elevators. Many, many, many passengers will switch lines here just to get to the center of the UCLA campus.

-The monorail claims 65mph at full passenger capacity over the Sepulveda Pass. Really? A 1,100ft vertical climb at a 5% grade? Rain is infrequent in LA, of course, but I am suspicious that performance would be significantly undermined during foul weather.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5492  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 2:14 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
After the 1985 Ross Dress-for-Less methane explosion, they had to delete the segment on Fairfax so they switched to a 2-line system with one branch down Wilshire to hit the Miracle Mile and a second branch up Vermont to Hollywood and the Valley.
Those of you who grew up in LA might be surprised to hear that this was national news. I remember seeing it on the TV news in the Midwest. Additionally, I recall Jay Leno ragging on the LA subway when it was under construction multiple times on The Tonight Show. I wasn't able to read any detailed information on the LA subway until the internet appeared and remember being startled that it was very much still under construction even after the national news reports had given us all the impression that it was completely halted.

Also, Henry Waxman was such an odd-looking guy that I clearly remember him also being on the national news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5493  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 6:28 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
The notion that the extension to LAX/Inglewood would only cost $1.4 billion is just ludicrous; the Foothill Extension from Azusa to Claremont costs that much (in 2017 dollars), and that's an at-grade LRT project.

Isn't $250 million per mile (which is already a conservative estimate) the general baseline for elevated HRT? Operating under that premise, the Westwood-LAX extension of the monorail should cost at minimum $2 billion. And that doesn't factor in any necessary land acquisition or the long platform-to-street bridges that would have to be built -- something that elevated rail projects (and even freeway median-running ones) typically don't require.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5494  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 10:49 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I don't get the dissatisfaction with the MRT proposal. The bulk of the corridor runs through a mountain pass, for which MRT is cheaper. The HRT station at UCLA is nice, but could be substituted with shuttle buses and freeway-running MRT to save $4B.
As a railfan I might have an intense irrational dislike of monorail. They're just funny looking buses as far as I'm concerned. It's all about steel-on-steel rail.

Besides, freeway-running transit systems are generally awful and outdated. In the baseline proposal it looks like just about every damn station is going to be on the freeway, probably in the center median. So much for transit oriented development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5495  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 12:55 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
As a railfan I might have an intense irrational dislike of monorail. They're just funny looking buses as far as I'm concerned. It's all about steel-on-steel rail.

Besides, freeway-running transit systems are generally awful and outdated. In the baseline proposal it looks like just about every damn station is going to be on the freeway, probably in the center median. So much for transit oriented development.
I agree that, if the proposed monorail runs in the freeway median on the LA Westside, then it's a bit cumbersome. I think that it could be a worthwhile investment if it runs in the median through the sepulveda pass, where there are no stations, and then runs above Sepulveda Boulevard between the VA Purple Line station and greater LAX.

Obviously, it's an uphill battle getting support for this option, but I just wanted to offer my 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5496  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 4:48 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,527
I am not against the monorail technology, but running along the 405 is a total non starter. Not acceptable. Every stop requires a transfer to a bus or shuttle to go anywhere. The experience of the stations is loud, polluted and unpleasant in general. It totally eliminates the much better station placement and design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5497  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 10:46 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 197
A subway would be extremely fast from ventura Blvd to ucla and other stops beyond that. This would save people a lot of time because of how vast as nd sprawling everything is. Places like Warner center, van nuys and others are major employment areas and dense compared to other Valley areas. These areas would be a great benefit to fast connections to other dense areas like Westwood.
So I would choose a subway for that purpose. Look at Hollywood Highland station to Universal station. Very fast despite the distance of several miles.
But.... I love views. I love driving from Valley to Westwood and vice versa for the views . I love the gold and then expo line for views so I do like the idea of an above ground rail. It would be higher than buildings and many trees so views wouldn't be blocked. LA subways are so boring underground. Nothing to see but the weirdos and tourists, joking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5498  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 1:56 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I think that it could be a worthwhile investment if it runs in the median through the sepulveda pass, where there are no stations.
Actually they're proposing a station at the Getty Center. I have taken the bus to/from the Getty Center and the stop is loud thanks to all of the freeway noise, so not unlike what's in store for the monorail should it be built along or in the middle of the 405. I remember taking the bus back to my brother's apartment just west of the VA at about 4:30pm, so right in time for rush hour. Je-sus. The congestion in that area on the the surface roads was insane. I remember the bus having to wait through 3-4 light cycles to get through one particular intersection.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Feb 25, 2021 at 6:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5499  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 5:26 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 223
I received some of the proposal documents from LA Skyrail (BYD), Bechtel and Tutor Perini and made some Twitter threads about them (multiple tweets for each proposal).

Bechtel:
https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...560022017?s=20

LA SkyRail/BYD:
https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...579664386?s=20

Tutor Perini:
https://twitter.com/numble/status/13...735802368?s=20
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5500  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 5:31 PM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,527
Seems no proposal even acknowledges a potential west-of-405 alignment down Centinela. I really hope people continue to advocate for that as to me it is much better. For the same reason running on the 405 median wastes a lot of money, running along Sepulveda is not much better.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:05 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.