daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 29th, 2017, 03:33 AM   #2621
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1507

HSR?

I think you mean LRT.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 29th, 2017, 04:40 AM   #2622
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

I think he meant heavy rail. Subway.
__________________

MarshallKnight liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2017, 03:48 PM   #2623
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1507

Then its HRT.

HSR means High Speed Rail-bullet trains.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2017, 09:09 PM   #2624
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Likes (Received): 860

sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain.. i meant HRT, not HSR
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2017, 10:04 PM   #2625
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

I am open to a lesser cost, faster option for the Sepulveda pass, an HRT would be nice, but very expensive and would take a very long time.

Monorail technology has advanced, and it's a fraction of the cost. What does the Getty tram use to climb that hill?

__________________

mrsmartman, redspork02 liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017, 12:08 AM   #2626
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

Monorail doesn't integrate with anything else. It's useful for shuttles, but as a part of a wider network, it makes sense to use something compatible with other stuff and be easily extendable to other locations - ie HRT, or (more so) LRT.
__________________

LosAngelesSportsFan, mrsmartman liked this post
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017, 02:11 AM   #2627
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,594
Likes (Received): 3095

Then the logic seems to be to use monorail from Pacoima to LAX, with transfers at NoHo, Wilshire and LAX (and perhaps other places) onto other rail modalities.

Or wait 30 years and spend 20-30B (Pacoima to LAX).
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2017, 09:11 PM   #2628
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Then the logic seems to be to use monorail from Pacoima to LAX, with transfers at NoHo, Wilshire and LAX (and perhaps other places) onto other rail modalities.

Or wait 30 years and spend 20-30B (Pacoima to LAX).
With PPP and Measure M, we can get a HRT built in a much quicker timeline. Also, an HRT line through, not around the pass, will allow for stations where there are actually people and jobs, such as Westwood village, UCLA, and so on. In my opinion, this line must be an HRT all the way from Pacoima to LAX and possibly beyond
__________________

etooley1985, fskobic, redspork02, pudgym29 liked this post
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017, 05:11 PM   #2629
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 317

HRT not Monorail

I prefer HRT too, over Monorail. The Sepulveda pass is really not a destination, other than the amazing Getty Center. And it's a steep mountain, why not tunnel under it? The valley and the Westside are what need connecting via light or heavy rail. If this was a dense part of the city, a Monorail might make sense. The mayor's nuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
With PPP and Measure M, we can get a HRT built in a much quicker timeline. Also, an HRT line through, not around the pass, will allow for stations where there are actually people and jobs, such as Westwood village, UCLA, and so on. In my opinion, this line must be an HRT all the way from Pacoima to LAX and possibly beyond
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017, 09:13 PM   #2630
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

I guess what the Mayor and....I am thinking the same way; and yes, because the pass is not a destination, we just need something to connect point A to B, not necessarily to integrate with the system.

Just like what the APM (Automated People Mover) will do at LAX connecting (not integrating) with the Crenshaw Line. It could be on the 405, from the VA to the Orange Line, or even from LAX to the Orange Line.

Monorail track switch - Osaka, Japan
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2017, 10:12 PM   #2631
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1507

You don't want a point-to-point system as much as you do an integrated one. That way you have fewer transfers, which makes the service more attractive.
__________________

LosAngelesSportsFan, fskobic liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 12:17 AM   #2632
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

No way around it then, HRT it is then. I was trying to give it a feasible chance.
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 12:55 AM   #2633
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,594
Likes (Received): 3095

As I said, those are fine ideas. Now show me the 30B and the 30 years. And the flying monkeys.

Really, is there going to be a lot of steam behind spending that much? And the next 11 years are focused on building for the Olympics, Inglewood Stadium, LAX and Purple to the VA, so it's going to be 30 years easy.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 01:00 AM   #2634
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,599
Likes (Received): 5963

Minimizing number of necessary transfers is absolutely crucial for a succesfull PT network. What you are suggesting is the complete opposite of that, inflating the number of transfers without a need for it.

Monorail is a bad choice and it gets worse if only built as a short in between in the network.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 01:38 AM   #2635
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,594
Likes (Received): 3095

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
Minimizing number of necessary transfers is absolutely crucial for a succesfull PT network. What you are suggesting is the complete opposite of that, inflating the number of transfers without a need for it.

Monorail is a bad choice and it gets worse if only built as a short in between in the network.
First, I don't post as an advocate for monorail, which I know is a bête noire for rail buffs. I am just pointing out choices.

To clarify a potential misunderstanding: a Pacoima to LAX monorail would not add to the number of transfers. If you wanted to go to, say, DT, Century City, Hollywood, Ktown, Beverly Hills, WeHo, etc., you have to change trains in any event; perhaps twice. Of course, monorail is a change of modality but that is not so unusual; it happens at Grand Central and Penn St. every day to say nothing of LA Union Station.
__________________

etooley1985 liked this post

Last edited by pesto; July 2nd, 2017 at 01:54 AM.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 02:50 AM   #2636
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,594
Likes (Received): 3095

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Ideally, the purple line would be extended all the way to the Pacific Palisades and Getty Villa. Pacific Palisades would then be upzoned for high-rises.
LOL. First, density in Santa Monica is too low for the feds to even consider granting funds to build there. Second SaMo is happy with that and vigorously opposes greater density. Third, you are talking about quiet residential neighborhoods in some areas that even the most insane developer wouldn't try to develop. And finally, the views there are gorgeous and nobody wants it to look like Miami or some other hideous resort.

You might as well say that central Amsterdam needs to be torn up for high rises and draining the canals. It's just childish.
__________________

fskobic liked this post
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 02:55 AM   #2637
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,594
Likes (Received): 3095

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquamaroon View Post
Just to chime in with my 2¢, I agree that Pacific Palisades will probably always be a quiet beach community. The best bet for high density on the coast is along Wilshire in Santa Monica, following a (finally!) completed Purple Line that stops at Wilshire/4th; and a (please grade separated) light rail line the runs down Lincoln Blvd. through SM, Venice, Playa Vista, and LAX, and then ideally continues down the coast to the Beach Cities.
Not unless someone changes attitudes dramatically. SaMo is dead set against further density or increases of existing height limits on Wilshire and the feds won't fund at that density (last I heard). Purple past the VA is a dead letter until SaMo turns in favor of high density, which I would assume is not in our lifetimes.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 12:31 PM   #2638
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

There's a very huge misconception about monorails that lump together both lovers and loather of them: “monorail” isn't a transit mode, but rather a technology related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. Therefore a monorail line can play different roles in a transit network depending on how it's conceived and built: some of them (like Chongqing and São Paulo ones) meet all the requirements for a full-fledged HRT but, of course, the use of “steel wheels on steel rails”; however, also rubber-tired metros and maglev metros lack of these, and nevertheless are undoubtedly classified as “heavy rail” (e.g. Montreal metro within APTA ridership report).

Unfortunately misconceptions are like cherries, one leads to another: since monorail technology occupied for decades a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but way lower capacity and a less wide serviced area - the related image of monorail infrastructure being inexpensive and slender has become common sense. But despite being highly widespread, this is a mere prejudice: extent of civil work and structural size of a monorail line, and accordingly construction costs and visual obstructiveness, varies greatly depending on designed capacity, hence if you want a monorail that can carry as many passengers as a conventional HRT, you'll end up with something more or less as bulky and costly as a conventional elevated HRT.

A technically correct and neutral approach would be: first and foremost, to identify the needed capacity of a line/system and then to choose a technology through an analysis of alternatives, with monorail among them (where appropriate). Conversely, I become suddenly wary, whenever a monorail proposal pops up in the same way as this one, the whole idea not being based on a solid engineering/socioeconomic ground but on fanciness & bias that somewhat goes with the “monorail image” itself.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

phoenixboi08 liked this post
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 07:56 PM   #2639
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,594
Likes (Received): 3095

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
There's a very huge misconception about monorails that lump together both lovers and loather of them: “monorail” isn't a transit mode, but rather a technology related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. Therefore a monorail line can play different roles in a transit network depending on how it's conceived and built: some of them (like Chongqing and São Paulo ones) meet all the requirements for a full-fledged HRT but, of course, the use of “steel wheels on steel rails”; however, also rubber-tired metros and maglev metros lack of these, and nevertheless are undoubtedly classified as “heavy rail” (e.g. Montreal metro within APTA ridership report).

Unfortunately misconceptions are like cherries, one leads to another: since monorail technology occupied for decades a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but way lower capacity and a less wide serviced area - the related image of monorail infrastructure being inexpensive and slender has become common sense. But despite being highly widespread, this is a mere prejudice: extent of civil work and structural size of a monorail line, and accordingly construction costs and visual obstructiveness, varies greatly depending on designed capacity, hence if you want a monorail that can carry as many passengers as a conventional HRT, you'll end up with something more or less as bulky and costly as a conventional elevated HRT.

A technically correct and neutral approach would be: first and foremost, to identify the needed capacity of a line/system and then to choose a technology through an analysis of alternatives, with monorail among them (where appropriate). Conversely, I become suddenly wary, whenever a monorail proposal pops up in the same way as this one, the whole idea not being based on a solid engineering/socioeconomic ground but on fanciness & bias that somewhat goes with the “monorail image” itself.
A nice discussion but you may have over-estimated the ignorance in this thread.

Monorail is being looked at because there is a specific issue that makes surface or center of freeway rail transit difficult, namely the steepness of the terrain. Therefore tunneling or monorail are possible alternatives. Of course, the amount of traffic has to be considered as well; but here the assumption is that it is very high.

Some are rejecting monorail out of hand; but I believe that some of the arguments used against it (passenger change of line or modality) apply more or less equally to a change from a line going down the center of a freeway to a surface line or underground line.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 08:21 PM   #2640
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
There's a very huge misconception about monorails that lump together both lovers and loather of them: “monorail” isn't a transit mode, but rather a technology related to two very important features (guidance and support) of transit modes. Therefore a monorail line can play different roles in a transit network depending on how it's conceived and built: some of them (like Chongqing and São Paulo ones) meet all the requirements for a full-fledged HRT but, of course, the use of “steel wheels on steel rails”; however, also rubber-tired metros and maglev metros lack of these, and nevertheless are undoubtedly classified as “heavy rail” (e.g. Montreal metro within APTA ridership report).

Unfortunately misconceptions are like cherries, one leads to another: since monorail technology occupied for decades a specific niche in transportation world - systems with exclusive, segregated row (like a metro) but way lower capacity and a less wide serviced area - the related image of monorail infrastructure being inexpensive and slender has become common sense. But despite being highly widespread, this is a mere prejudice: extent of civil work and structural size of a monorail line, and accordingly construction costs and visual obstructiveness, varies greatly depending on designed capacity, hence if you want a monorail that can carry as many passengers as a conventional HRT, you'll end up with something more or less as bulky and costly as a conventional elevated HRT.

A technically correct and neutral approach would be: first and foremost, to identify the needed capacity of a line/system and then to choose a technology through an analysis of alternatives, with monorail among them (where appropriate). Conversely, I become suddenly wary, whenever a monorail proposal pops up in the same way as this one, the whole idea not being based on a solid engineering/socioeconomic ground but on fanciness & bias that somewhat goes with the “monorail image” itself.
I doubt it would be an elevated HRT, which would also be costlier than the alternative. What most are advocating for is tunneling under the mountains, which would be extremely expensive, just the soil and geological studies would cost a pretty penny.
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium