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 September 14th, 2017, 10:55 PM   #2701
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,617
Likes (Received): 3099

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenni View Post
Funny you ask. You know, lately we have been getting a lot of Amish visits here in LA. I've seen them in 2 occasions on Hollywood Blvd handing out a music cd out to passers by. And in downtown touristing. I don't know why all of a sudden...they're here.
"At first simply disguising themselves as Amish tourists kept suspicion away from them. But as the toll of disemboweled bodies continued to mount they eventually had to avoid any place where they might stand out or be noticed. Hollywood Boulevard was the ideal solution."
__________________

zaphod, pudgym29 liked this post
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 22nd, 2017, 12:19 AM   #2702
redspork02
Registered User
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,209
Likes (Received): 818

A subway through the East Valley? Sherman Oaks residents say they want one

LA DAILY NEWS ARTICLE



Quote:
Members of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, which touts itself as representing “2,300 politically active families,” suggested in a letter sent to Metro on Tuesday that the public transportation agency should seriously consider building a subway......
Per the article, the same association opposed Measure M.

What Evs............Public imput continues.
__________________
L O S A N G E L E S - - - 2028 - "FOLLOW THE SUN"

IT'S TIME FOR DODGER BASEBALL!!
redspork02 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2017, 01:04 PM   #2703
Swede
forumer #29
 
Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 4,215
Likes (Received): 1663

As I read it the actual main reason they want a subway instead of LRT is that a subway won't take up any roadspace i.e. won't upset their car-centric lives. I'm 100% certain they'll oppose any an all upzonings that would be needed to motivate a subway.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall

MrAronymous, aquaticko, redspork02 liked this post
Swede no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2017, 06:30 PM   #2704
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 1678

Couldn't it just be a tunneled LRT alignment?
__________________
What fun would internet discussions be if we weren't all amateur experts in everything?

After I'm gone, your earth will be free to live out its miserable span of existence, as one of my satellites, and that's how it's going to be...

Bring me the continuum transfunctioner...

zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2017, 11:26 PM   #2705
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,609
Likes (Received): 5972

There is a reason why underground LRT is rather rare, and generally done only in central parts of larger LRT networks. You have an example under construction right in DT LA at the moment. There underground parts can make sense. However, long underground passages are usually not too efficient. The costs are very high, not that much lower than proper subway, yet the capacity is substantially lower than a subway. At the same time, access to the trains is more remote and ways are longer than if you have an at grade LRT station.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Swede, nylkoorB liked this post
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2017, 11:53 PM   #2706
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,011
Likes (Received): 6104

LRT = less capacity on vehicles and less space between stations than full-metro. That's why you can get away with same-level crossings: the service level generally is a level below that of a metro. That's also why it doesn't make sense to make an all-underground LRT instead of metro, since there would be more stations with LRT, the most difficult and expensive part of constructing underground.
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2017, 01:25 AM   #2707
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

There's no reason why LRT necessitates less space between stations than full-metro. For instace, the Paris Metro stops more frequently than LRT systems like LA's, Manchester Metrolink, London's DLR and Tramlink. The issue there is - like this whole question of a fully tunneled, rather than surface, LRT along the Orange Line - financial, rather than what type of railway it is.

Nor does LRT necessarily mean less capacious (ie shorter) trains - especially if the line is fully segregated. OK, the Red/Purple's 450ft-long trains are at the long end for subways, and sure LRT will almost certainly not match that, but LRT trains about 180ft are the norm and running them 2.5 times as often gives the same capacity (this is how the Copenhagen Metro works - they went with 128ft trains running three times the frequency that they would with 360ft trains), and 260ft are common - including in LA. 4 LRT cars coupled together is just shy of 350ft - the difference thus becomes barely significant (run 8 trains per hour, not 6, to get similar capacity - 2800ft/hour, rather than 2700ft/hour) and is certainly doable on a fully-segregated line. But, this shouldn't be an issue on the Orange line where the official proposal is surface LRT and the complaint demanding tunnelling isn't capacity-related.

There's benefits of LRT: it can climb steeper slopes and turn tighter curves (making it easier to switch between subway and surface, for example), there is the possibility of on-street extension, and there are economies of scale if the city has a lot of LRT that it can integrate with.

The problem with Orange Line conversion to underground LRT is that, unless there's an extension proposed that links it to LA's large LRT network, then it might as well be a Red Line extension, given the Red Line is there already.
__________________

etooley1985, Swede liked this post
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2017, 09:52 PM   #2708
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 1678

In LA's case the biggest and most meaningful difference would probably be the ability to run at grade. LRT doesn't need tunnels or bridges along the entire alignment but a metro does. There is more LRT than metro in LA and if you want through running or interconnectivity the line should be LRT
__________________
What fun would internet discussions be if we weren't all amateur experts in everything?

After I'm gone, your earth will be free to live out its miserable span of existence, as one of my satellites, and that's how it's going to be...

Bring me the continuum transfunctioner...


Yak79 liked this post
zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2017, 01:38 AM   #2709
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,609
Likes (Received): 5972

Well, yes, you can make an LRT with metro station spacing and underground, basically a metro with LRT capacity at only moderately lower costs than a proper metro. The point is that this is a fairly bad deal when compared to at grade LRT.

If you build an LRT with subway like capacities, you basically have a subway. There is an example for that in Vienna. The line U6, officially a subway is technically rather a fully grade separated light rail. ... at the cost of a subway. (The reason it is run with light rail vehicles is that it uses old "Stadtbahn" infrastructure and adaptation to full subway was rightly considered not the best choice)
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Swede liked this post
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2017, 07:30 AM   #2710
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 1678

Fair enough.

This is the Orange Line we are talking about after all, it wouldn't have any connections to anything else except the Red Line(metro) to start with. If it was going to be underground might as well make it an extension of the Red Line.

However I feel like there could be a few viable branches off a San Fernando Valley LRT line, or it could continue to the east and go up to Burbank or over to Glendale or something. In that case, the ability for the line to climb to the surface and exist in the form of a tram might be desirable.
__________________
What fun would internet discussions be if we weren't all amateur experts in everything?

After I'm gone, your earth will be free to live out its miserable span of existence, as one of my satellites, and that's how it's going to be...

Bring me the continuum transfunctioner...

zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2017, 07:03 PM   #2711
krnboy1009
Registered User
 
krnboy1009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,662
Likes (Received): 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede View Post
As I read it the actual main reason they want a subway instead of LRT is that a subway won't take up any roadspace i.e. won't upset their car-centric lives. I'm 100% certain they'll oppose any an all upzonings that would be needed to motivate a subway.
Of course they will find out the construction process will be far more disruptive but I guess in the long run they are correct.
krnboy1009 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2017, 08:22 PM   #2712
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,077
Likes (Received): 8831

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
Well, yes, you can make an LRT with metro station spacing and underground, basically a metro with LRT capacity at only moderately lower costs than a proper metro. The point is that this is a fairly bad deal when compared to at grade LRT.

If you build an LRT with subway like capacities, you basically have a subway. There is an example for that in Vienna. The line U6, officially a subway is technically rather a fully grade separated light rail. ... at the cost of a subway. (The reason it is run with light rail vehicles is that it uses old "Stadtbahn" infrastructure and adaptation to full subway was rightly considered not the best choice)
But I also don't see why LRT with subway-like characteristics is inherently a bad thing. If one looks at Germany, there are many of these "pre-metro", or stadtbahn systems in Stuttgart, Hannover, Cologne, Düsseldorf, basically the whole of the Rhein-Ruhr amongst others as well (Bielefeld is also a great example of a small city with really amazing rail infrastructure thanks to their stadtbahn in the centre of the city). These provide fixed transport routes that can run at grade out of the busier city centre and run underground in the city centre freeing up space for large pedestrian areas as well as avoiding traffic lights giving a higher average speed (and more direct routing as well).

For medium to high levels of utilisation, these systems are practically ideal. Of course they don't carry the sheer volume of people as a full-blown heavy rail metro system, but they make up for it in flexibility.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 27th, 2017, 12:02 AM   #2713
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,609
Likes (Received): 5972

Subway like characteristics aren't necessarily a bad thing. Central underground parts can make sense indeed for the reasons you stated. If you extend those underground parts however, and make a substantial share of the network underground, the value (what you get for what you pay) isn't there anymore (because of the lower capacity compared to a subway, while costs of underground stations are still very substantial).

This is the reason why Vienna has reduced its pre-metro network again (mainly by upgrade to subway) and hasn't built any new corridor of that kind in many years. For a long time the existing underground pre-metro stations were also incredibly run down because large investments for station of rather mediocre utilisation were a tough sell. Now that most of them have been finally refurbished it is also visible that budgets were much tighter than for subway stations (which makes sense of course).
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Last edited by Slartibartfas; September 27th, 2017 at 12:08 AM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2017, 12:33 AM   #2714
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,278
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
There's no reason why LRT necessitates less space between stations than full-metro. For instace, the Paris Metro stops more frequently than LRT systems like LA's, Manchester Metrolink, London's DLR and Tramlink.
...
As a matter of fact, except the downtown core section a LRT line usually does have more sparse stations than a standard subway in order to ensure fairly low travel times even going far in the outskirts; thus, LRTs tend to have a higher commercial speed than subways. After all, it's a system specifically conceived for urban contexts with wider territorial extension and lower population density.


Quote:
...
Nor does LRT necessarily mean less capacious (ie shorter) trains - especially if the line is fully segregated. OK, the Red/Purple's 450ft-long trains are at the long end for subways, and sure LRT will almost certainly not match that, but LRT trains about 180ft are the norm and running them 2.5 times as often gives the same capacity (this is how the Copenhagen Metro works - they went with 128ft trains running three times the frequency that they would with 360ft trains), and 260ft are common - including in LA. 4 LRT cars coupled together is just shy of 350ft - the difference thus becomes barely significant (run 8 trains per hour, not 6, to get similar capacity - 2800ft/hour, rather than 2700ft/hour) and is certainly doable on a fully-segregated line. But, this shouldn't be an issue on the Orange line where the official proposal is surface LRT and the complaint demanding tunnelling isn't capacity-related.

...
A fully segregated LRT is somewhat a contradiction in terms: once you go along with full segregation, you'll get a metro line (even when it uses LRT's vehicles)¹, and the Copenhagen one is a “light metro” indeed. The LRT concept is tramway-derivative and the ability to run at grade dealing with other road traffic (on-street separated ROW without segregation, road intersection with traffic lights, ROW shared with other transit like the Seattle tunnel, etc.) is among its essential, distinctive features: on one hand, it allows LRT being less expensive and easier to design; in the other hand it limits both trains size and headway, which means a LRT tops its capacity at 8˙000÷10˙000 pphd, while a conventional metro can reach 50˙000 pphd and a “light” one 25˙000 pphd.
There's non way an LRT could tie the capacity doubling or tripling the frequency, because:
- the minimum attainable headway on a single route (between 4' end 3') is higher than in a metro (at least 2' 30" even with traditional signaling);
- the maximum throughput achievable in a section combining multiple routes is anyway more or less the same as in a driverless metro.

Using the actual instead of the theoretical minimum headway, as you do assuming 6 train/h for subways, leads to an unfair comparision, putting aside that running a HRT train every ten minute during rush hours, which is unfortunately fairly common in USA, means at least a huge planning mistake²: using “1˙300 passenger capacious” heavy rail trains for a “less than 8˙000 pphd” demand (after having paid the humongous cost needed for the infrastructure able to accommodate them) is just like using a shovel to eat soup.


¹ this doesn't apply, of course, in cases like that of the LA Green Line which, despite being fully grade separated, is intended to become part of a wider LRT network, through the connection with Crenshaw/LAX Line; and it doesn't apply as well for underground sections (like those you can find in several North American LRT and in German Stadtbahn, etc ...) because the presence of at grade segments elsewere along the route is binding on operational features for the whole system;
² the interwined timetable of LA Red and Purple Line in the common trunk leads to a more sensible throughput of 12 train/h, therefore a capacity of about 15˙000 pphd: enough to justify a metro.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

zaphod liked this post

Last edited by Yak79; September 28th, 2017 at 01:26 AM.
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2017, 02:36 AM   #2715
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
<snip **** retentive stuff that means that LRT must fit your definition>
From wikipedia (there are sources for these paragraphs on the page)
Light rail, light rail transit (LRT), or fast tram is urban public transport using rolling stock similar to a tramway, but operating at a higher capacity, and often on an exclusive right-of-way.

There is no standard definition, but in the United States (where the terminology was devised in the 1970s from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train that is lower capacity and lower speed than a long heavy passenger train or metro system.
There's a lot of the word 'exclusive' talking about the ROW - ie what you say stops a line being LRT is something that is commonly part of people's definition of LRT. I think, however, the most useful snippet is the first five words of the second paragraph - "There is no standard definition" - this makes all your semantics arguments a nonsense.
Quote:
Using the actual instead of the theoretical minimum headway, as you do assuming 6 train/h for subways
Where did I say that 6tph was a minimum headway? One can ramp it up with that ratio anyway - instead of 24tph, run 32tph, for example*. However, as we are talking about the LA Metro, then 6tph is a very relevant number, as it is the peak frequency on the Red line - we aren't looking at this in the abstract here.

*as for extrapolation to extremes, then the 36tph max in London (Moscow gets slightly higher) needs to be considered alongside the theoretical max of 86tph line-of-sight tram signalling gives on Manchester Metrolink, on which they are going to run 50tph between Cornbrook and St Peter's Square when the Trafford Park line opens.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2017, 09:50 PM   #2716
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,278
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
From wikipedia (there are sources for these paragraphs on the page)
Light rail, light rail transit (LRT), or fast tram is urban public transport using rolling stock similar to a tramway, but operating at a higher capacity, and often on an exclusive right-of-way.

There is no standard definition, but in the United States (where the terminology was devised in the 1970s from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train that is lower capacity and lower speed than a long heavy passenger train or metro system.
There's a lot of the word 'exclusive' talking about the ROW - ie what you say stops a line being LRT is something that is commonly part of people's definition of LRT. I think, however, the most useful snippet is the first five words of the second paragraph - "There is no standard definition" - this makes all your semantics arguments a nonsense.
...
The absence of a standard definition doesn't mean everything could be regarded as light rail: even a broad concept has (or better, must have) boundaries, maybe blurred. I'm well aware that some technical sources tend to put togheter, under the LRT label, almost everything, driverless light metros (like London DLR or Vancouver Skytrain) included; but this way drawing a line grounded on technical reasons becomes really tricky: since a lot of European metro trains are significantly lighter than their US counterparts, we might regarded also them as LRT? And if not, why? Moreover, an LRT label that not incorporate a clear enough distinction from metros would turn completely useless/meaningless from a technical point of view.

I simply remarked a single feature, fully segregation of the right-of-way, sufficient to prevent a system to be a LRT from a technical point of view. In UITP definition of what a metro is* the only peremptory requirement is “having a fully segregated ROW” (which is very different from having “an exclusive ROW”): a fully segregated system which fits the metro definition is clearly a metro, and there would be no meaning in call it LRT.
Therefore, I refuses all your allegations: the “stuff” I wrote isn't neither retentive - because almost all the systems called LRT in the World (except, mainly for legal reason, in UK and some Asian countries) - nor my - because is based upon the definition of metro adopted by international organizations and technical literature - nor semantic - because is both based on and required by eminent technical reasons.

One last poin: Wikipedia, and other sources as well, states that LRTs have lower speed than metro systems, but it's actually quite the opposite, as anyone can easily verify, for instance, in LA case itself (confronting commercial speed of LRT lines and HRT lines).


* A metro is an urban guided transport system, mostly on rails, running on an exclusive right-of-way without any interference from other traffic and mostly with some degree of drive automation and train protection. These design features allow high capacity trains to run with short headways and high commercial speed.


Quote:
...
Where did I say that 6tph was a minimum headway? One can ramp it up with that ratio anyway - instead of 24tph, run 32tph, for example*. However, as we are talking about the LA Metro, then 6tph is a very relevant number, as it is the peak frequency on the Red line - we aren't looking at this in the abstract here.

*as for extrapolation to extremes, then the 36tph max in London (Moscow gets slightly higher) needs to be considered alongside the theoretical max of 86tph line-of-sight tram signalling gives on Manchester Metrolink, on which they are going to run 50tph between Cornbrook and St Peter's Square when the Trafford Park line opens.
I didn't wrote you said it was the minimum headway, I wrote that you used that headway as a term of comparison (which you confirm in this post); anyhow, I keep on thinking the fact that in LA Metro HRT is underutilized compared to its potential is not a good reason to see metros and LRT as replaceable in terms of capacity.

Speaking about extremes, then the 36 tph max in London are surpassed by the 42 tph max (headway = 85") in Paris line 1 and the 55 tph max (headway = 65") in Toulouse VAL: the word driverless wasn't added in my statement by accident.
Conversely, AFAIK no current tram/LRT system exceeds a cumulate throughput of 55÷60 tph, and the few that reach it are legacy network (Prague, Melbourne, Milan) with also “short” rolling stocks. Once Karlsruhe hit 54 tph, they have chosen to split that section in two, putting some route underground in the same street and some other on surface in a parallel one; I'm very keen to see wheter the 86 tph cumulate throughput envisaged in Manchester is actually sustainable or not, if it was ever actually reached, but by now what is planned is 50 tph.
Thence, we have a 40÷55 tph limit in metro systems versus a 50÷60 tph limit in LRT/tram systems: more or less the same, just like I wrote.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2017, 01:11 AM   #2717
etooley1985
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 319

Regional Connector Construction Photo:

The Regional Connector, which will be underground light rail with 3 new stations downtown, is moving along:




Aerial view of the future Grand Av Arts/Bunker Hill Station; Summer 2017.

From Facebook
__________________
etooley1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2017, 01:12 AM   #2718
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

The Victoria line's '100 second railway' is an average headway. The real minimum headway is less than that - with Geofftech measuring 79 seconds apart. There's a difference between headways and frequency (and I am fully aware that I am making a semantic argument here).

Paris' Line 1 does NOT run 42tph - merely that trains can run 85 seconds apart. I gather from the press surrounding the hype of 36tph on the Victoria, most notably the very thorough LondonReconnections, that the actual average headway on Ligne 1 is 115 seconds. However, very high frequencies (certainly beyond 36tph, where safety culture has to be laxer than in the litigious USA to work - Paris trials of 85 second headways broke someone's arm, and ex-Soviet countries have very high acceleration/deceleration rates that also wouldn't be tolerated) are off the table in LA anyway, which is where we are talking about.

As for LRT vs Metro, yes there is an issue there. I said 'full metro', when I meant 'HRT metro' (then again, I don't know why I counted the 300ft-long grade-separated trolleybuses of Paris as "Heavy"), speaking of the differences between LRT and the HRT subway lines in LA.
Quote:
Therefore, I refuses all your allegation
Good ol' Skitts Law striking again: as you begin your claim to be far superior with respect to the English language (by being able to retain precise definitions and fastidiously point out minor discrepancies) you make an accidental error that undermines your claim to be good at English.

Last edited by sotonsi; September 29th, 2017 at 01:26 AM.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2017, 01:27 AM   #2719
redspork02
Registered User
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,209
Likes (Received): 818

THE SOURCE LA METRO NEWSLETTER

Metro moves aggressively to accelerate the Measure M program

Quote:
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today announced that it is moving toward a series of public-private partnerships (P3s) that will deliver Measure M transportation projects to L.A. County residents even faster, and more efficiently than expected.
Quote:
The partnerships, which will be created through a competitive bid process, would help accelerate three major Measure M projects: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor and extension of the ExpressLanes network.
Quote:
The next step is to issue requests for proposals (RFPs) that give all firms the chance to offer proposals on how these projects could be accelerated.Reaching the RFP stage quickly – something that often takes years – is the result of a new streamlined unsolicited proposal policy that was launched in 2016 by Metro’s Office of Extraordinary Innovation. The goal of the policy is to make it easier for private entities to submit ideas to Metro for building and, in some cases, operating projects. Unsolicited proposals for all three of the projects were submitted within the past year. While the contents of the proposals are confidential, all of the approaches utilize P3 concepts.
__________________
L O S A N G E L E S - - - 2028 - "FOLLOW THE SUN"

IT'S TIME FOR DODGER BASEBALL!!
redspork02 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2017, 01:30 AM   #2720
redspork02
Registered User
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,209
Likes (Received): 818

THE SOURCE WEBSITE & MORE PICS

Fresh pics: Crenshaw/LAX Line’s Downtown Inglewood Station


INGLEWOOD STATION

Quote:
Construction of the Crenshaw/LAX Line is moving along well with the project on track, pun intended, for a fall 2019 opening. Above are some new pics from the Downtown Inglewood Station that will be located on the north side of Florence Avenue near Market Street — i.e. just west of La Brea Avenue. The tracks will cross La Brea on a new rail bridge.
------------------------------------------------------

THis dinky little station will "service" DT Inglewood / Forum and LA Stadium? Yikes.
__________________
L O S A N G E L E S - - - 2028 - "FOLLOW THE SUN"

IT'S TIME FOR DODGER BASEBALL!!

Swede liked this post
redspork02 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 12:16 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