|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 15, 2009 12:09:19 GMT -8
I mostly agree--if 10 years or so is needed for the Wilshire Subway to reach the 405 freeway, BOTH Valley lines will be in folks' thought processes...but the Pink Line will be waaaaay ahead of the 405 Line with respect to planning, design and funding.
Right now, there's not even an Alternatives Analysis for the 405 Line--and frankly, that corridor is already pretty caught up with the freeway widening. I know it's not rail, but I can't imagine folks wanting another big project until that freeway work is done.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 15, 2009 23:11:12 GMT -8
Until recently, Metro's claim was that it could not plan ahead because it could only plan what it had money for. I never bought that: I figure it had more to do with the length of politician's terms than anything else. Actually this is indeed a misrepresentation of the facts and not true. What is true is that Metro cannot ask for federal money for projects it won't be able to operate once they are built and therefore it cannot include them in the long-range-plan build list. But there is no law against planning. In fact the long-range plan also has a strategic plan exactly for this purpose. But unfortunately this strategic plan is not much more than names of a few exotic-sounding lines as a wish list. My first sentence is about Metro's claim, not mine. Remember, all of these studies originate from directions from the Metro Board. Metro staff does what they are asked. If the Metro Board had asked staff for a single scoping study that includes Purple, Pink and Crenshaw together, Metro staff could have done that. These lines may have separate EIRs or combined EIRs, but there is no reason they couldn't have been studied together. Yes, I know it's not yours but Metro's and that's what I meant with (them) misrepresenting the facts. Even though Metro is run by a board, they do talk to their staff outside the board meetings and listen to their suggestions. So, the blame for this is probably partially on the high-level staff.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 16, 2009 6:35:23 GMT -8
...and let us not forget our own ability to privately and publicly give both staff and the Board direction.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 16, 2009 10:46:25 GMT -8
Yes, the board needs to be told repeatedly what must be done. They don't get things quite fast. Here is one of my favorite movie lines from The Last King of Scotland. Idi Amin is the Ugandan military dictator and Nicholas Garrigan is the young Scottish doctor who ends up becoming his top adviser. The dictator is truly mad at him and yelling at him:
Idi Amin: I want you to tell me what to do. Nicholas Garrigan: You want ME to tell YOU what to do? Idi Amin: Yes, you are my advisor. You are the only one I can trust in here. You should have told me not to throw the Asians out, in the first place. Nicholas Garrigan: I DID! Idi Amin: But you did not persuade me, Nicholas. You did not persuade me!
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 21, 2009 7:31:07 GMT -8
Mayor wants to speed up subway work... www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway21-2009aug21,0,3864258.story "Should the project receive adequate federal assistance, Villaraigosa predicted that the subway to the Westside could be finished in 10 years, or about 17 years ahead of the current timetable." Well, I guess it depends on what the "Westside" is considered to be. The 3 phases of the Wilshire line are what I presume he is talking about. I'll let other comment about the specific details of what he might be thinking or how the federal assistance might speed things up... But, I have always wondered why the actual construction phase took so long. The AA/DEIR/FEIR/CEQA and all the planning documents obviously take years, but if you plan on building 3 phases of the Purple line then you could certainly start these all so that construction could occur as soon as possible. With the TBM moving Westward from the current terminus as far as you planned on going. The rest of the construction, I believe could also be speeded up. How about a thought experiment... If funds were unlimited, how would one go about speeding up construction. Make a list, see what is practical without breaking the bank, maybe prioritize the list in terms of "bang for the extra buck" in speeding up construction, and have an actual discussion to see whether it makes sense to speed it up? 1. TBM running 24/7, its underground anyway so just run 3 shifts. 2. Expand the normal above ground work day from 7am to 4 pm to include all daylight hours. Plan th eworkforse so as to not require any huge OT pay for this, maybe split shifts during the summer. 3. If any work can safely take place while the sun is down, do it then to save time. That is what the "night shift" does. 4. Buying up bulk materials while the price is low during the current recession. i.e. diesel fuel contracts, rail contracts, etc... I think that a little out of the box thinking could really speed things up at a marginal increase in overall cost. RubberToe P.S. Just remember how fast that 10 freeway bridge was built after the 1994 earthquake.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 22, 2009 12:41:48 GMT -8
I'm really happy with the mayor's efforts at extending the subway: Getting Waxman to repeal the subway ban, pushing Measure R and just being a high profile public advocate. There are a few other policies of his that I like as well such as the Million Trees campaign.
That's not to say he's not without his faults but like most politicians your voting for the whole meal not the individual items in the meal.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 22, 2009 20:11:54 GMT -8
The Mayor has, indeed, gone through a major amount of hurdles both politically and financially to get to where we are now. Unfortunately, the light rail projects to expand the Expo Line, the Foothill Gold Line, the Downtown Connector and even the Green Line really prevent the Subway from moving anywhere west of Fairfax for the immediate future.
In particular, the Expo Line being built to the Westside makes it politically very difficult to get that Subway anywhere west of Fairfax before 2015, when the Expo Line is likely to make it to Santa Monica. After those light rails mentioned above are done, it'll be a LOT easier to finish the next two segments of the Subway to just west of the 405.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 23, 2009 19:53:06 GMT -8
The Mayor has, indeed, gone through a major amount of hurdles both politically and financially to get to where we are now. Unfortunately, the light rail projects to expand the Expo Line, the Foothill Gold Line, the Downtown Connector and even the Green Line really prevent the Subway from moving anywhere west of Fairfax for the immediate future. In particular, the Expo Line being built to the Westside makes it politically very difficult to get that Subway anywhere west of Fairfax before 2015, when the Expo Line is likely to make it to Santa Monica. After those light rails mentioned above are done, it'll be a LOT easier to finish the next two segments of the Subway to just west of the 405. Ken, I disagree that Expo and Foothill will prevent the Purple Line extension from getting going. Sure the Purple Line needs some federal funding to really get going much past Fairfax anytime soon, but those projects in no way preclude Metro from getting those funds. In fact, Metro is not seeking federal funds for any of the projects you mentioned and is instead focusing on getting federal funds for the DTC and Purple and Pink Lines. Hopefully, the subway can start in 2012 if we are lucky and maybe even get to Fairfax by 2015-2016 or so if we are really lucky. If we have federal funds, then there is no reason to not continue on to Century City and then Westwood. The mayor's 10 year time frame is no doubt agressive. I think Century City in 10 years is more practical, but why not push for it?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 24, 2009 4:44:18 GMT -8
I have in both private and public testimony in the past recommended that Metro do everything it can to get the Purple Line to Century City ASAP because of the lack of political and ridership punch that any lesser push would achieve. As far as I'm concerned, the City of L.A. and private entities should put up bonds to make sure that Prop. R funds are utilized as proactively as possible.
Unfortunately, with the economic downturn, the state and city up to their eyeballs in pension and other functioning overruns, and a federal government that is suddenly more concerned about spending megabucks on health care than transportation, the ability to pay for this huge project AND the Expo, Foothill Gold Line, Crenshaw and Downtown Connector Lines (and don't forget the Green Line) is threatened.
At this point, in 2009--with the hope that things get better next year--the Fairfax extension might be the only thing we can do.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 24, 2009 14:09:47 GMT -8
"... and a federal government that is suddenly more concerned about spending megabucks on health care than transportation,..." Dr. Alpern, are you attempting to phrase the health care debate as health care vs. public transportation issue? May I point you to the 2009 Federal budget: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budgetPlease note how many items are larger then the Dept. of Transportation's $11.5 billion. Why single out universal healthcare projected to be 150 billion per year and not military/anti terrorism spending this year 660 billion. An even larger issue is mega corporations which pay little to no taxes. The Government Accountability Office issued a report saying 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years. (source =http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812 ")
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 24, 2009 16:05:43 GMT -8
Unfortunately, considering that the Obama Administration has suddenly put off the 7-year federal spending cycle funding (against the vigorous opposition of Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike) for another year, I can definitely conclude that transportation has been pushed into the background at this immediate time.
As to the numerous things that preempt and override transportation with respect to funding, I can honestly say that many of them are ill-spent and yet enjoy wonderful lobbies. Transportation helps, if is not key, to powering the economy that pays for the rest of these items and the Obama Administration is choosing a poor if not self-defeating time to pursue a gigantic new and complicated (it's NOT a simple, quick item) endeavour. It threatens to be his Iraq, and I fear for Obama's agenda and future because he chose to do this when and how he did.
I am not a one-issue person, and as a Republican who voted for Obama I had and still hope for more from him. When he was using the stimulus and other funds to push transportation and infrastructure, I think he had the support of most of the American people. By pushing T/I issues behind health care reform (something that is entirely overdue but NOT a nice, easy thing to overhaul), I very much believe he's put himself into a lousy pickle.
As to who's paying too high taxes, I'd say that the balance sheets of a lot of entities, whether we think they're scumbags or not, suggest they don't have more to give (and they DO employ many people, despise some of them as I do).
I think that publishing the comparative salaries of CEO's and Boardmembers as a percentage of the company's earnings, as well as the percentage of overhead of health care plans, will do a lot to clarify what our nation's economic problems are.
Putting off T/I onto the backburner after Bush blew it off is NOT what the American people elected Obama to do...and certainly not in the order he's now doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 26, 2009 11:43:10 GMT -8
Unfortunately, considering that the Obama Administration has suddenly put off the 7-year federal spending cycle funding (against the vigorous opposition of Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike) for another year, I can definitely conclude that transportation has been pushed into the background at this immediate time. As to the numerous things that preempt and override transportation with respect to funding, I can honestly say that many of them are ill-spent and yet enjoy wonderful lobbies. Transportation helps, if is not key, to powering the economy that pays for the rest of these items and the Obama Administration is choosing a poor if not self-defeating time to pursue a gigantic new and complicated (it's NOT a simple, quick item) endeavour. It threatens to be his Iraq, and I fear for Obama's agenda and future because he chose to do this when and how he did. I am not a one-issue person, and as a Republican who voted for Obama I had and still hope for more from him. When he was using the stimulus and other funds to push transportation and infrastructure, I think he had the support of most of the American people. By pushing T/I issues behind health care reform (something that is entirely overdue but NOT a nice, easy thing to overhaul), I very much believe he's put himself into a lousy pickle. As to who's paying too high taxes, I'd say that the balance sheets of a lot of entities, whether we think they're scumbags or not, suggest they don't have more to give (and they DO employ many people, despise some of them as I do). I think that publishing the comparative salaries of CEO's and Boardmembers as a percentage of the company's earnings, as well as the percentage of overhead of health care plans, will do a lot to clarify what our nation's economic problems are. Putting off T/I onto the backburner after Bush blew it off is NOT what the American people elected Obama to do...and certainly not in the order he's now doing it. The Obama Administration set aside $26,800,000,000 from ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) for transportation projects. (source = Federal Highway Admin: www.fhwa.dot.gov/ ) including $742.5 million to 11 transit projects located in nine states. The awardees include light rail projects in Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington. (source = transportationfunding.blogspot.com/ ) While tranportation has not been forgottent, SAFETEA has been pushed back. (nothing new by the way, Bush did it too.) and for good reason. The last time SAFETEA went through, Ted Stevens (R- ALaska) put a huge pork barrel project dubbed 'Bridge To Nowhere' in the bill. Also 4/5th of SAFETEA is highway projects. It may be time our nation debate how we want to appropriate transportation funds. It's better that reps not be distracted while other large issues are at hand. Further, "suddenly" (first post you mentioned healthcare) may not be an apt description of the healthcare debate. The health care debate has been going on for months now and was one of Obama's platform issues when he ran for president. It's not like he said, "Surprise, I"m pushing for Healthcare Reform" I understand why he's pushing hard for this now. There may not be a latter, in terms of political support. Lastly, I very much disagree that because mega-corporations do not pay more taxes they cannot. That same study I pointed to in my last post said that 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all. (source = moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp ) There are so many loopholes in tax laws these days collecting taxes from large corporations is like running water through a strainer.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 26, 2009 19:15:30 GMT -8
While I agree with you that corporate welfare must be limited and reversed, I respectfully disagree with you on some of your other points. It was Hurricane Katrina and other events and our failing infrastructure that had voters wanting someone better than Bush with respect to transportation.
Oberstar and others wanted to have a SAFETEA update that included much more rail funding, in addition to roads, and I think that would have been a popular move that would have enhanced Obama's standing. I do not think the all-out push for healthcare reform that sidelined transportation was smart or politically unifying.
More than most on this discussion board, as a physician I am all-too-aware of the need for healthcare reform, but certain strategies are more likely to be successful than others. I don't think there will be any bridges to nowhere any time soon, and I regret that Obama lost a wonderful chance to prove he was smarter and wiser than Bush with respect to transportation funding.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 26, 2009 21:29:42 GMT -8
While I agree with you that corporate welfare must be limited and reversed, I respectfully disagree with you on some of your other points. It was Hurricane Katrina and other events and our failing infrastructure that had voters wanting someone better than Bush with respect to transportation. Oberstar and others wanted to have a SAFETEA update that included much more rail funding, in addition to roads, and I think that would have been a popular move that would have enhanced Obama's standing. I do not think the all-out push for healthcare reform that sidelined transportation was smart or politically unifying. More than most on this discussion board, as a physician I am all-too-aware of the need for healthcare reform, but certain strategies are more likely to be successful than others. I don't think there will be any bridges to nowhere any time soon, and I regret that Obama lost a wonderful chance to prove he was smarter and wiser than Bush with respect to transportation funding. Don't be lulled into thinking that transportation reform will be easy. The trucking, highway, and auto interests will lobby hard to keep the same formulas and to limit mass transit expenditures. Also, as you know, the Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt. It needs a raised gas tax just to keep the same basic funding and that means no more for mass transit. Would you want to raises taxes right now? The Republicans are just waiting to accuse the Dems of raising taxes and riling up the country over it even though they bankrupted the fund themselves (which most Americans don't realize). Remember most members of the Senate care little to nothing about cities and mass transit as rural areas are overrepresented. It may not be as bloody as healthcare, but it will be damn close.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 27, 2009 4:14:46 GMT -8
I don't know how it could or should be done (I'm fine with an elevated gas tax, but there are other ways of shifting funding to transportation), but polls both locally and nationally have always favored more funding to transportation/infrastructure...yet it is a more controversial split for health care.
I dare anyone to conclude that the recent increase in rail funding from the Obama Administration created any of the debates and disagreements that the health care challenge has brought. Some screamers yes, but nothing close to the controversy and disconnects we now have with healthcare (and this coming from someone who has written to CityWatch in favor of healthcare reform).
Some of those on the right wing will call transportation funding "pork", but even on the right there is more sympathy to roads...and even rail, if done right. Probably the best way to fund it is to just shift the money (probably some $50-100 billion a year) from other priorities in addition to a possible gas tax increase.
I suspect that such a relatively small amount of the budget would not be that hard to shifted from other priorities--and, based on the President's past policies, my guess is that it would come education and defense.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 24, 2009 13:05:34 GMT -8
This is probably not news to many, but a press release from the Metro website: Westside Subway Extension, Regional Connector Projects To Seek Federal FundingIn a move that places Los Angeles County in contention to receive its fair share of future federal rail funding, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors today voted to pursue long-term funding agreements through the US. Department of Transportation to build the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects. The two projects are expected to score highly in the rankings necessary to secure Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) under current federal New Starts requirements. The Federal Transit Administration administers the New Starts program for major capital transit investments nationwide. Projects eligible for future funding through this program must compete with other projects nationwide to be selected to enter into these types of contractual agreements. Both the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects are slated to provide critically needed transit linkages for existing transit riders traveling to, from and through some of the most densely populated and commercially significant areas of Los Angeles County. They are both included in the Measure R half-cent sales tax expenditure plan and the agency’s draft Long Range Transportation Plan that is scheduled for future Board consideration. “These two projects will not only result in significantly greater connectivity in the Metro subway and light rail systems, but also will result in a dramatic increase in overall system ridership and user benefits,” said Ara Najarian, Glendale City Council Member and MTA Board Chair. “In short, they are our best chance to secure future federal funds, and in so doing, will free up precious local monies for other regionally significant transportation projects.” The Board’s decision to select the two local rail projects and advance those projects in the New Starts Program could establish reliable, multi-year funding as early as the federal Fiscal Year 2012. Over the past six years, for example, the agency has received an average of $80 million per year in federal rail funding through the New Starts program. Without this federal match, the agency would be forced to utilize local funds to build heavy and light rail projects, which would make completion of the promised Measure R program of county transportation projects difficult to accomplish. The Westside Subway Extension is estimated to cost $4.2 billion in today’s dollars for completion of the Measure R segment from the current terminus of the Metro Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Station to Westwood. Measure R funds would be used to match federal funds. The project is currently in its Draft Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) phase, and the MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment later next year. Ridership has been projected at 49,000 new station boardings for the Wilshire alternative to Westwood. An additional 27,000 boardings are estimated to be generated throughout the Metro system as a result of the subway extension. The project would connect key job centers such as Century City and Westwood with the growing Metro Rail system. The $1.3 billion Regional Connector project would receive $160 million in escalated Measure R funds. Also in its Draft EIS/EIR phase, the MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment late next year. The project would connect the existing Metro Gold and Blue Line light rail lines through Downtown Los Angeles. In addition to joining these two lines, the project also would enable trains to run directly between the Gold Line Eastside Extension, expected to open in 2009, and the Expo Line, which will connect Downtown L.A. to Culver City in the 2010-2011 timeframe. The Regional Connector anticipates generating 16,000 new systemwide boardings and additional ridership on the connecting light rail lines through the county. The line would connect major downtown activity centers, provide a one-seat regional ride and reduce transit travel times by 12-20 minutes. For additional information, visit www.metro.net/westside and wwwmetro.net/regionalconnector..
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Sept 24, 2009 16:01:18 GMT -8
Any idea on the odds of getting this money? Seems like these projects have to be towards the front of the line nationwide...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 24, 2009 20:58:53 GMT -8
Ya know, I never knew that Laker forward/centers posted on this board... ) Seriously, however, I am very optimistic of these two high-profile projects...although the number of projected additional boardings strikes me as rather low...
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 6, 2009 15:19:20 GMT -8
Regarding some controversial alignments for the Purple Line, it appears that Metro is hearing about 50-50 from stakeholders for a proposed Crenshaw station. Given Metro's penchant for trying to keep costs down, I'd say my money would be on them axing this station, but we'll see.
As far as Century City, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars vs. SM Blvd. seems a no brainer as one station is in the middle of Century City and the other abuts the transit useless Los Angeles Country Club. For such an important destination, INMO they really need to go with the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars.
For Westwood, Metro really seems to be leaning towards the UCLA parking lot on the North side of Wilshire between Veteran and Gayley. The main benefit is that it is easier to construct and they wouldn't have to deck Wilshire like they would at Wilshire/Westwood. Wilshire/Veteran is the busiest intersection in SoCal, so this would save a lot of aggravation. The public seems to marginally favor this as well.
Wilshire/Westwood is more centrally located, while the UCLA Lot is on the western edge of Westwood with the dead zone LA National Cemetary (horrible pun) directly to its west so it would have to get all its foot traffic from the East. Also, Wilshire/Westwood would allow for a portal on the south side of Wilshire, which is important because Wilshire is a very wide street in this area and a lot of pedestrians can cause havok with traffic patterns as well as being inconvenient for the pedestrians.
Unfortunately, the public in these meetings are UCLA students and senior citizen homeowners (a few of whom rudely interrupted the MTA presentation complaining that they might have their homes tunneled beneath). Office and UCLA workers who live somewhere else are not really represented at all. Since Westwood employs more people than all of Downtown San Diego, this is a problem. For such a well used and important station, Metro needs to do the right thing and have a centrally located station with multiple portals even if the construction is tough. These stations can't be moved in the future...
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 6, 2009 20:49:13 GMT -8
Unfortunately, the public in these meetings are UCLA students and senior citizen homeowners (a few of whom rudely interrupted the MTA presentation complaining that they might have their homes tunneled beneath). Office and UCLA workers who live somewhere else are not really represented at all. When it comes to these debates over competing alignments in a neighborhood the question I often think of is, "Does the neighborhood decide what's best for the region or does the region decide what's best for the neighborhood?" I think the Westwood station debate is one where the elderly and the students at that meeting should be overridden, as callous as that sounds. The station should be at Wilshire/Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 7, 2009 22:17:42 GMT -8
Unfortunately, the public in these meetings are UCLA students and senior citizen homeowners (a few of whom rudely interrupted the MTA presentation complaining that they might have their homes tunneled beneath). Office and UCLA workers who live somewhere else are not really represented at all. When it comes to these debates over competing alignments in a neighborhood the question I often think of is, "Does the neighborhood decide what's best for the region or does the region decide what's best for the neighborhood?" I think the Westwood station debate is one where the elderly and the students at that meeting should be overridden, as callous as that sounds. The station should be at Wilshire/Westwood. At least with this station, I don't think there are strong feelings in the community on either location. I think it is really coming down to the MTA's preference to not have to deck Wilshire and have a little easier construction on the other site. Be sure to put your comments on the MTA's website on your preference for the location. It is important that other users get their perspective on this, especially since it seems the MTA is leaning towards the location to which more passive users would not choose.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 9, 2009 18:18:44 GMT -8
It's very difficult to get a consensus on such a regional project. Pasadena residents aren't exactly going to head to West LA to hear about and comment on the subway extension. They are less likely to be aware of it in the news. Students, often activists by nature, and the elderly, who are rabble-rousers by nature, could skew the perception of public opinion on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 15, 2009 21:45:32 GMT -8
Here is the link to an LA Times article over the weekend. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-westside15-2009nov15,0,3140003.story Overall, I am almost glad the LA Times doesn't cover transportation if they are going to cover it this horribly. The front picture showed the Wilshire/Western station and said it was a light rail station. Con Howe says LA can't be building a subway for a 100 years like New York. Not sure why New York always has to come into the conversation when talking public transit. Other cities have public transit too. I think we are more like Boston, D.C. or San Francisco. Also, NY didn't build its system over 100 years (I know the LA Times was just quoting here). It was more like less than half that as they haven't built anything of significance since the end of WWII. They didn't even mention one aspect that hurts the Pink Line is that it can't go past Hollywood/Highland to the Valley without transferring. Also, the Cedar's worker they cited would actually benefit hugely from a Wilshire extension as she just works 1/2 mile from a proposed station. If the Pink Line were built without a Wilshire Line I doubt she would save any much time (because of its circular route) over a built out Wilshire line but no Pink Line. Also, I thought it was pretty funny how they say no one in LA will likely walk over 1/4 mile, but then they cite this middle class woman who walks twice that from a bus stop contradicting the whole thing (even though I do agree that we are going to have to improve our pedestrian links from our stations). Finally, until MTA sets finishes connecting the Green Line to LAX, everyone is going to use that as an example of why LA public transit is so weak. We gotta get that done for our system first, but second so we don't keep having to hear about this... Something that is often overlooked that isn't covered in these things, is if the Feds agree to fund half of the Purple Line to Westwood, thus meaning not all the $4.1B allocated to the Westside subway is used for the Westwood section, does this mean that it would go to the Pink Line or is there just a scramble across the county to try to get to use those funds?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 16, 2009 10:49:06 GMT -8
A couple questions that have nothing to do with each other: 1. Since the Wilshire extension would be built in phases, would they use the same TBM's for each phase? For example, assuming that the TBM's start at Wilshire/Western and proceed West, would they go past the phase 1 terminus at Fairfax and then be mothballed until they are started up to dig the next segment? 2. Concerning the dates being thrown around as to when various segments will open. I have seen 2036 for Westwood, and another story I read today showed 2047 for the Pink Line: wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=4120I think all these stories are working under the assumption that the current level of funding (including measure R) will not increase over the next 38 years. This seems silly to me. A friend of mine is a general contractor who works on home remodels and additions. He has a phrase he likes to quote: "Money solves all problems". Someone needs to point out, at least in response to some of these articles, that if we want to get these projects done sooner, that it is just a matter of finding/dedicating the money to make it happen. I would guess that what will happen is that once Expo phase 1 is done, and the ridership is good along with the Gold Line extension, that people will be receptive to an additional tax to speed up the remaining Measure R work. Especially once we get an idea of the Federal commitment, and assuming that there are no financial/construction debacles like the original Red Line had. Something along the lines of: Ok, as it stands, here are the opening dates of the various lines planned. If we increase the county sales tax by X% for Y years, we can complete each of these this much sooner than the current plan. Maybe I'm being optimistic here, but until Measure R was passed you all would have said the same thing about it. Measure R is a good thing, and maybe we just need more of a good thing? RT
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 16, 2009 11:51:41 GMT -8
Boy, masonite and rubbertoe, don't you guys bring up a lot of key points:
1) The L.A. Times' coverage of transit has plummeted in quality and accuracy since Steve Hymon left the Times--fortunately, the average commuter doesn't know much better
2) Much of the reason why the Green Line needs to get to LAX is to exorcise that political demon and move forward (and hence I'm such a big supporter of the Crenshaw Line, which fixes much of that bleeding sore of a problem)
3) I don't think we'll see property or county sales taxes go up any time soon, but the pressure will be on the feds and the state to do its fair share because it's now very safe politically to push for increased projects done faster (for example, Mayor Villaraigosa is likely to have few, if any, opponents to his plan to build the Wilshire Subway to the Westside in ten years)
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 17, 2009 23:27:44 GMT -8
A couple questions that have nothing to do with each other: 1. Since the Wilshire extension would be built in phases, would they use the same TBM's for each phase? For example, assuming that the TBM's start at Wilshire/Western and proceed West, would they go past the phase 1 terminus at Fairfax and then be mothballed until they are started up to dig the next segment? 2. Concerning the dates being thrown around as to when various segments will open. I have seen 2036 for Westwood, and another story I read today showed 2047 for the Pink Line: wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=4120I think all these stories are working under the assumption that the current level of funding (including measure R) will not increase over the next 38 years. This seems silly to me. A friend of mine is a general contractor who works on home remodels and additions. He has a phrase he likes to quote: "Money solves all problems". Someone needs to point out, at least in response to some of these articles, that if we want to get these projects done sooner, that it is just a matter of finding/dedicating the money to make it happen. I would guess that what will happen is that once Expo phase 1 is done, and the ridership is good along with the Gold Line extension, that people will be receptive to an additional tax to speed up the remaining Measure R work. Especially once we get an idea of the Federal commitment, and assuming that there are no financial/construction debacles like the original Red Line had. Something along the lines of: Ok, as it stands, here are the opening dates of the various lines planned. If we increase the county sales tax by X% for Y years, we can complete each of these this much sooner than the current plan. Maybe I'm being optimistic here, but until Measure R was passed you all would have said the same thing about it. Measure R is a good thing, and maybe we just need more of a good thing? RT Like all rail projects, dreams don't become reality tomorrow. We're still in the decades old process of finishing up the subway on Wilshire Blvd. At what point does the intentions of a rail line becomes irrelevant because of change; like how the Green Line was originally suppose to serve the Cold War industries in El Segundo? Will the LA Westside still be the trip generator powerhouse when the Subway reaches there or will things get shifted around and new activity centers pops up elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 18, 2009 7:10:03 GMT -8
Tony, You raise a good point. Looking too far into the future is not an easy thing to do. I have commented previously that having a long range transportation plan looking 30 years ahead is all well and good, but only the first 5-10 years mean anything because they will redo the plan every 5 years anyway. Presumably that is when they would look at the kind of changes that you mention and then factor those in, along with any major increases/decreases in available funds like Measure R.
I could see a couple scenarios that could play out in this regard, meaning, what could substantially change the LA transit picture such that we might have to divert resources away from something like the Pink Line that is seen as 20 years down the road.
Scenario 1 would be rising energy prices. We saw oil hit $140 last year, and while you could argue that was a bubble like the home price bubble and the stock bubble, I don't think there is much doubt that oil prices are going to be going higher, especially when you look that far out. A book I'm currently reading is called "$20 per gallon gas", and it discusses things that will change as gas prices rise. Increased transit usage is a big part of what the author discusses. Under this scenario, I could easily see the areas around current transit stations becoming much more desirable places to live, especially if you don't have a car. He says that the distant suburbs would contract and the city will infill, and a large part of that will occur around existing transit. This is kind of like the "if you build it they will come", or more like "since it is built and running they will come".
The other thing that could happen as a result of that is that the system currently in place would get pretty strained. There would literally be too many people using it, and it might have to be expanded. The Blue Line is already carrying almost 80,000 riders per day. If this were to happen, then we might end up spending more money "updating" existing lines which would then detract from expanding the system. I haven't read through the LRTP in a while, but unless I'm mistaken there isn't much in there concerning the possibility that the existing system might need to be significantly upgraded. Three car trains at 5 minute headways I believe are the limits for the light rail lines. Of course, some form of automatic train control could conceivably reduce the headways during rush hour if need be.
RT
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 18, 2009 8:53:13 GMT -8
Wilshire Blvd. was suitable for rail 30 years ago, today and will be suitable for rail 30 years from now or 100 years from now.
I'm not worried about the Purple Line no longer being needed in 30 years.
There is not a single part of New York's, London's and Paris' HRT system that was built 30 years and isn't still needed.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 18, 2009 23:28:35 GMT -8
I wasn't at the most recent round of subway meetings but I feel like I was after looking at the presentation Metro just uploaded on its site: Oct/Nov 2009 Station Information PresentationIt is 84-pages long and offers an exhaustive explanation of where we are on this project as far as funding and design considerations of each station. Some beautiful renderings of existing subway stations are also provided (notably of 7th St./Metro Center and Wilshire/Vermont, which despite an exhaustive search, I had not been able to find sketches of before now).
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Nov 19, 2009 1:07:41 GMT -8
Thanks for the link Justin, I'd been waiting to see these slides. I would have been at the first meeting regarding the MOS-1 stations but alas I am here in Jersey. For the most part Metro staff has narrowed down the various alternatives to those that are best for the ridership of the line and optimize pedestrian integration and proper portal placement, however after looking at these sites I still have a few major concerns. The foremost one is WTF? is Metro thinking with that VA station. I understand they want to put a station at the VA, but they need to put it within close walking distance to (if not right at) Federal or even Barrington (those were both options for a VA station last go around). The ridership from the office towers and dense residential areas between Bundy and Federal warrant a station there in absence of a sure-fire MOS-4 to Santa Monica and that ridership outweighs whatever 500 car lot Metro wants to put at the VA stop. This is not some suburban outpost of the system it's one the most residentially dense sections of the Westside. Because the Bundy station is part of MOS-4, there NEEDS to be a station at Federal if the Purple line is to end there for lack of funding. The second major concern, albeit of less important since the Pink Line is unfunded and there is plenty of time to revise the plans is the so called Santa Monica/San Vicente station. The location is smack in the middle of La Cienega and San Vicente. While I understand that Metro needs to make the tracks curve there to reach San Vicente, there is no reason the station still can't be at La Cienega. The pedestrian and bus connections are paltry at this middling location. Because of the angle of SM Blvd. at that point, it makes for a longer walk to get up to the Sunset Strip. Remember, that walk is uphill so the walk time is longer than the same distance otherwise. No need to make that harder. Also you lose the one mile station spacing making it harder on the dense section of WeHo between La Cienega and Fairfax, exacerbated by the fact that the Fairfax box is east of Fairfax. The third point regards the La Cienega station, which I'm conflicted about I really like option A because it is a better walk for the workers on Wilshire near San Vicente while still accomodating the dense City of LA tract that juts into the BH boundaries. On the other hand, Option C would be convenient for them while allowing transfers, though harder for the stretch of Wilshire between Fairfax and La Cienega if only they would open a portal at the south side of the street near the other end of the station box. Which brings me to a general point about portals. In general, the portals Metro is thinking about all make sense, but it was scary to see that Wilshire/Westwod was the only slide that said "multiple portals ready on opening day". I would hope many of the other stations have multiple portals, esp. at Century City (duh, build all four at Constellation), 4th Street (if it ever gets there), Beverly/Rodeo area, Wilshire/ La Brea, and or Wilshire/Fairfax (depending on which one gets the transfer to Crenshaw which was noticably unaccounted for in the rendering possibilites) Edit: Now that I think about it, the absence of planning for a future Crenshaw transfer in the La Brea and Fairfax schematics actually is the most alarming thing in this report. MOS-1 comes first so these stations need to be built with a transfer in mind since we don't get to do it over again. Why would you tear up a street twice when you could just design a mezzanine that will accomodate a future N-S platform.
|
|