HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5501  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 6:47 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,844
Honestly, the differences in station placements between the two proposals are so marginal that I might be more supportive of MRT. The only glaring issue MRT has compared with HRT is inter connectivity between the purple line Wilshire / Westwood station. If MRT spent the money to make their station below grade and provide a direct connection to the purple line station, I would see no issue issue supporting it. The addition of a Getty station doesn’t hurt either. This is all contingent on the UCLA station being built, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5502  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 7:14 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Honestly, the differences in station placements between the two proposals are so marginal that I might be more supportive of MRT. The only glaring issue MRT has compared with HRT is inter connectivity between the purple line Wilshire / Westwood station. If MRT spent the money to make their station below grade and provide a direct connection to the purple line station, I would see no issue issue supporting it. The addition of a Getty station doesn’t hurt either. This is all contingent on the UCLA station being built, of course.
I don't think the difference between a station at the 101/405 interchange (SkyRail) and Ventura/Sepulveda (Bechtel) is marginal, let alone freeway adjacent stations throughout the alignment. The transfer to the Expo Line requires walking descending from the freeway level and walking about a full block to the Expo Line station on Sepulveda.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5503  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 8:43 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
I don't think the difference between a station at the 101/405 interchange (SkyRail) and Ventura/Sepulveda (Bechtel) is marginal, let alone freeway adjacent stations throughout the alignment. The transfer to the Expo Line requires walking descending from the freeway level and walking about a full block to the Expo Line station on Sepulveda.
Yeah look at this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0351...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5504  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 9:41 PM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 34
In what planet does Metro operate? MONORAIL?!?!?! Mostly ABOVE ground? With a cockamamie connection to UCLA?!?!? And then running down the 405 median where it’s practically useless? DO IT RIGHT. OR. DONT. DO. IT. AT ALL

This is the one project they can’t get wrong. They have most of the money and it’s a safe bet LA gets a decent chunk of change if Bidens multi Trillion dollar infrastructure proposal happens.

There are many ideas that would make this thing TRULY great - like extending it past LAX to Inglewood venues and then ending at Century/Vermont to link up with an extended Vermont Red line OR on the Northern end having a middle local track that is LRT and continues past the VN ML station at grade (to continue the local every block type transportation that is needed in the valley which makes both the major city metro needs and the neighborhood streetcar type needs all together

HOWEVER with that being said - the basics of this project are a no brained and LA Metro is doing a downright negligent disservice to the LA area if there is anything other than HRT from VN ML to LAX with the southern alignment NOT on the 405 freeway. What good is this line if it’s not fast and efficient? If someone has to crawl down flights of stairs from an aerial structure - cross the street and then walk three blocks to transfer ... that’s a joke and one that will cost thousands and thousands of riders. ALL of these stations should be underground and the transfers should require one flight of stairs and 30 seconds between trains - period. Like a real city would have. If the system continues to build half ass (GL, Crenshaw, Washington Blvd, Orange Line, East Side) it will get half ass ridership and results DO IT RIGHT OR DONT DO IT AT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5505  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 10:48 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
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
Bumping this to the new page. Thanks to numble for getting these You've done more on this topic than any local news outlets, which says a lot about the state of local news reporting.

The more I read the Bechtel report, the more I like it. They've hit it on the bullseye on a lot of things that have been discussed on here and other transit forums elsewhere. Single bore tunnel to save cost, open gangway (and shorter) trains to fit more people and reduce platform size, good station locations, pay attention to bus transfers etc.

They seem to prefer Sepulveda alignment south of Expo to LAX but I think that is based on ease of construction and path of least resistance. Overland and Centinela alignments both have 1 extra station compare to Sepulveda so that also drives up costs. It's something that Metro did to rig the analysis as we discussed before.

The Skyrail proposal is ok but the terrible placement of the stations is a huge problem. One glaring issue - no discussion on the cost of tunneling from Getty center to UCLA and the underground station. And because the tunneling is an option, not their base case proposal, they did not address why once they detour off the 405, why do they want to return to the 405 when it is a straight shot down Westwood to Overland. Also, it is evident that they've already laid the political groundwork for their bid to go thru... I think the cake is already baked. At this point, it will take a major push from heavy rail advocates to try to overturn it. The fact that BYD had basically copted Move LA is a huge factor. We are here debating the merits, I don't think that's how the board will vote based on the merits. Especially if Move LA decides to stay on the sideline. Perhaps we should start thinking about how to salvage the Skyrail proposal and push them to do underground in West LA from Getty Center to LAX.

The Tutor proposal was lacking in detail compared to Bechtel and I can see why Metro decided to chose one and not the other to go forward.

Last edited by bzcat; Feb 25, 2021 at 11:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5506  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2021, 11:38 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,844
Is there anywhere in the Skyrail proposal where they demarcate where the portal will be located that the MRT will use to emerge emerge from below grade, what path it will take to get to the proposed Wilshire / Westwood station, and how it will return to the 405? Seems like it would be crossing over multiple surface streets. I wonder if there's an opportunity here to stay below grade until the Wilshire / Westwood station (allowing for a seamless below grade transfer) after which it runs elevated along Sepulveda until it directly intersects with the Expo / Sepulveda station. I can't imagine it would cost substantially more for the MRT to run in the middle of Sepulveda rather than the median of the 405.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5507  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 12:40 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
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.
I don't understand the logic of having a station at the Getty Center. Is the museum that much of a draw that it warrants having a station on a trunk line?

I could see having a station at Sunset, and having a bus transfer to Getty. Obviously, a lot of details need to be worked out for either the MRT or HRT proposal.

Oh, and FWIW, I only support the MRT proposal for its lower cost. I feel that some of the lines, e.g. the Expo Line, were built more cheaply than they should have been, and LACMTA could do better to spread its resources more evenly around the county.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5508  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 2:27 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Is there anywhere in the Skyrail proposal where they demarcate where the portal will be located that the MRT will use to emerge emerge from below grade, what path it will take to get to the proposed Wilshire / Westwood station, and how it will return to the 405? Seems like it would be crossing over multiple surface streets. I wonder if there's an opportunity here to stay below grade until the Wilshire / Westwood station (allowing for a seamless below grade transfer) after which it runs elevated along Sepulveda until it directly intersects with the Expo / Sepulveda station. I can't imagine it would cost substantially more for the MRT to run in the middle of Sepulveda rather than the median of the 405.
Yes. North portal will be in the hillside above the Leo Baeck Temple parking lot, just south of the Getty Center stop (this stop will be about 1/4mi north of the Getty tram). Underground station at the center of UCLA campus next to the Luskin Conference Center. South portal will be around Veteran/Kinross near UCLA Lot 36. Elevated station at Lot 36 with connection to Purple Line west entrance.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5509  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 2:44 AM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 34
So let me get this straight:

MRT is all elevated in the valley?
It’s all elevated except one UCLA station south of the valley?
It’s connection to the purple line isn’t direct?
It’s in the median of the 405?

This is a JOKE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5510  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 2:46 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I can't imagine it would cost substantially more for the MRT to run in the middle of Sepulveda rather than the median of the 405.
The new line will have to pass beneath the purple line, so the station box structure will be quite deep no matter if it is heavy rail or the monorail.

Extending the tunnel to and beneath Wilshire will bring the cost of the monorail closer and closer to the cost of HRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5511  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 2:49 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I don't understand the logic of having a station at the Getty Center. Is the museum that much of a draw that it warrants having a station on a trunk line?
It's a sales tactic. They'll point to the Getty Center station and say the HRT tunnel can't serve the Getty Center. It also frames the monorail as a tourist-friendly operation since most wealthy LA people have ridden the Getty's funicular railroad but have never ridden a city bus or any of the rail lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5512  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 3:26 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Bumping this to the new page. Thanks to numble for getting these You've done more on this topic than any local news outlets, which says a lot about the state of local news reporting.

The more I read the Bechtel report, the more I like it. They've hit it on the bullseye on a lot of things that have been discussed on here and other transit forums elsewhere. Single bore tunnel to save cost, open gangway (and shorter) trains to fit more people and reduce platform size, good station locations, pay attention to bus transfers etc.

They seem to prefer Sepulveda alignment south of Expo to LAX but I think that is based on ease of construction and path of least resistance. Overland and Centinela alignments both have 1 extra station compare to Sepulveda so that also drives up costs. It's something that Metro did to rig the analysis as we discussed before.

The Skyrail proposal is ok but the terrible placement of the stations is a huge problem. One glaring issue - no discussion on the cost of tunneling from Getty center to UCLA and the underground station. And because the tunneling is an option, not their base case proposal, they did not address why once they detour off the 405, why do they want to return to the 405 when it is a straight shot down Westwood to Overland. Also, it is evident that they've already laid the political groundwork for their bid to go thru... I think the cake is already baked. At this point, it will take a major push from heavy rail advocates to try to overturn it. The fact that BYD had basically copted Move LA is a huge factor. We are here debating the merits, I don't think that's how the board will vote based on the merits. Especially if Move LA decides to stay on the sideline. Perhaps we should start thinking about how to salvage the Skyrail proposal and push them to do underground in West LA from Getty Center to LAX.

The Tutor proposal was lacking in detail compared to Bechtel and I can see why Metro decided to chose one and not the other to go forward.
The Centinela alignment for the Westside-LAX segment is/was by far the most compelling alternative IMO, but I always knew it was a long shot. But automated operations and 1.5-2.5-minute headways is a major win. I do wonder if the 3-car consists are too short though. It'd be annoying to have to wait for the next train (even if it's just 90 seconds) because the current one is overcrowded or at full capacity.

To your last point about "salvaging" the SkyRail proposal... I don't get it. The reason why this is even viable is because of the cost savings afforded by the elevated alignment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5513  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 3:50 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
How is the capital cost for BYD's proposal half that of what Metro projected for MRT? What accounts for this large discrepancy, amounting to construction costs that appear more comparable to at-grade LRT projects?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5514  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 4:05 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Things that I do like about the BYD proposal:

1) Cheaper cost (although probably not as much as is being advertised).
2) A dedicated Getty Center station. If you're going to follow the 405, you might as well build one. This actually really intrigues me and makes the MRT concept more palatable, because this really represents the only chance to ever build a Getty Center station.
3) The longer consists (up to 8-car trains) AND the frequency.
4) Talks of expansion beyond LAX and Van Nuys.
5) The trains themselves have a sleek design and resemble bullet trains, which I think would bring an added psychological effect and potentially capture choice riders.

If they can have an underground alignment from UCLA to Expo and then aerial along Sepulveda, I actually might be okay with it since the other option follows Sepulveda. Placing stations in the middle of a freeway is what I take umbrage with.

Last edited by Quixote; Feb 26, 2021 at 4:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5515  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 5:28 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
If they can have an underground alignment from UCLA to Expo and then aerial along Sepulveda, I actually might be okay with it since the other option follows Sepulveda. Placing stations in the middle of a freeway is what I take umbrage with.
The stations are actually shifted to the side so that they are adjacent to the freeway rather than directly on top of it. Still not great, but only a block removed from having the station directly on top of Sepulveda (which isn't that great either). My preferred alignment would have been to follow Westwood to Overland or cut over to Centinela, neither of which seem like they are likely to happen. What intrigues me most about the MRT is the low construction cost, comparable to LRT costs. While we can debate about if we prefer MRT or HRT for the Sepulveda transit corridor, I'm sure we all agree that we'd much rather have MRT than LRT, especially for something like the West Santa Anna Branch. If BRD can prove they are capable of construction MRT for a reasonable price, I wonder if Metro could be enticed into building fully grade separated lines instead of what would previously have been street running LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5516  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 5:57 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,995
I think it’s pretty obvious where this seems to be going
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5517  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 8:10 AM
ReDSPork02 ReDSPork02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
Big mistake in my op. Monorail is not the way to go.
If they ever want to integrate the route with others in the future, the option will not be there. Example:
a one seat ride from the valley to DTLA thru the Sepulveda pass would be probable with HRT once the red line is redirected south of Wilshire/Vermont when HRT is build in the future down Vermont.
Example. or other option, a one seat ride from LAX to DTLA would no longer be possible without HRT.

if Metro is going to build, they need to get it right! HRT is the way "This is the way!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5518  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 10:50 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
The stations are actually shifted to the side so that they are adjacent to the freeway rather than directly on top of it. Still not great, but only a block removed from having the station directly on top of Sepulveda (which isn't that great either). My preferred alignment would have been to follow Westwood to Overland or cut over to Centinela, neither of which seem like they are likely to happen. What intrigues me most about the MRT is the low construction cost, comparable to LRT costs. While we can debate about if we prefer MRT or HRT for the Sepulveda transit corridor, I'm sure we all agree that we'd much rather have MRT than LRT, especially for something like the West Santa Anna Branch. If BRD can prove they are capable of construction MRT for a reasonable price, I wonder if Metro could be enticed into building fully grade separated lines instead of what would previously have been street running LRT.
They are building it in the freeway because communities will not accept elevated otherwise. Metro board members are already complaining about the aerial segments of both proposals that don’t run in the freeway.

The West Santa Ana Branch line will be LRT and will not be MRT. It will start construction before the Sepulveda Line. The draft EIR for West Santa Ana is done and the FTA is already reviewing it, whereas the 3-4 year EIR process starts for the Sepulveda Line in March.

Here is a sense of the timelines: https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...E-DB4ED08FE7E2

Tutor Perini’s proposal was only $1.1 billion more than BYD’s proposal, and it included underground stations for UCLA, Westwood and Expo Line, so it is actually cheaper than the monorail. BYD says they have a UCLA alternative but they don’t cost it out, artificially decreasing their price estimate. Tutor probably could’ve removed their UCLA station and underbid BYD, with a UCLA option that is not costed out. In that hypothetical, I think people naturally would be skeptical or cynical of such a blatant deliberately misleading underbidding process or that Tutor can build it that cheaply, especially given how it has been mired in controversy. I don’t see why you are so optimistic about BYD, which seems to have deliberately underbid, has no experience building a line in North America, and has been mired in political controversy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5519  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 3:58 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
They are building it in the freeway because communities will not accept elevated otherwise. Metro board members are already complaining about the aerial segments of both proposals that don’t run in the freeway.

The West Santa Ana Branch line will be LRT and will not be MRT. It will start construction before the Sepulveda Line. The draft EIR for West Santa Ana is done and the FTA is already reviewing it, whereas the 3-4 year EIR process starts for the Sepulveda Line in March.

Here is a sense of the timelines: https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...E-DB4ED08FE7E2

Tutor Perini’s proposal was only $1.1 billion more than BYD’s proposal, and it included underground stations for UCLA, Westwood and Expo Line, so it is actually cheaper than the monorail. BYD says they have a UCLA alternative but they don’t cost it out, artificially decreasing their price estimate. Tutor probably could’ve removed their UCLA station and underbid BYD, with a UCLA option that is not costed out. In that hypothetical, I think people naturally would be skeptical or cynical of such a blatant deliberately misleading underbidding process or that Tutor can build it that cheaply, especially given how it has been mired in controversy. I don’t see why you are so optimistic about BYD, which seems to have deliberately underbid, has no experience building a line in North America, and has been mired in political controversy.
Ron Tutor fully admitted that he underbids these projects and then makes billions on (foreseeable) change orders, so I'm not surprised their bid was thrown out.

https://californiapolicycenter.org/h...ntract-awards/

BYD is the devil you don't know. There's not a lot of data on monorail projects so their numbers can't be verified. It should be pretty obvious that an elevated line is cheaper than one that's mostly in subway.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5520  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 4:09 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
They are building it in the freeway because communities will not accept elevated otherwise. Metro board members are already complaining about the aerial segments of both proposals that don’t run in the freeway.
It's for this reason that HRT1 is probably not out of the question. Having one fewer station and a more direct tunnel alignment underneath the SM Mountains would probably mitigate some of the extra costs by a few hundred million.
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 9:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.