|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 24, 2010 15:12:53 GMT -8
I didn't see a thread for this very important topic. Here's a link to the 30 in 10 web page at Metro.It started as a long shot but hopefully it will happen. And then in an even longer shot, hopefully Metro won't screw it up!  Actually I'm only halfway kidding. I am very skeptical of Metro's ability to manage this many construction projects at once and I think that the chance that all of these could get built by 2020 is essentially nil. Metro's wishy-washy affirmation of their own accelerated construction schedule only adds to my skepticism. I'm very turned off by the delays during the construction of the last two lines, the implementation of TAP, and the Breda lrv fiasco (I've yet to hear Metro deny Breda's claims that the cars with the seat, weight, and compatibility issues were essentially built to spec). Is there any potential for a different government entity to oversee one or more of the projects? Caltrans? LA County? 30 in 10 map |
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Apr 24, 2010 18:04:04 GMT -8
One comment on topic and one off topic. I agree there is no way in hell MTA can manage this many projects at once. I have serious doubts if MTA, Caltrans and LA County could divide these up and manage them. Off topic comment. Why is it that whenever an I-405 line is mentioned a Getty Center stop always gets thrown in on the map? The Getty could never generate enough boardings to justify the cost of a station. There would be more nannies and housekeepers than Getty patrons using the line. If a 405 line is ever built, the stations should be Orange Line, Ventura Blvd and then Westwood. All people care about are getting from the Valley to the Westside as fast as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 24, 2010 19:30:46 GMT -8
Luckily we have studies and EIR's to keep us from wasting money like that. Although a 405-line subway would make a Getty Center station impossible, so it's probably moot anyway.
My worry, beyond simply can Metro manage this many projects at once is, what if highway plans that the politicians seem to be pushing for are included too? Hopefully if that's the case it can be diverted to Caltrans or a single-purpose entity like a construction authority: if Metro is unsure that they can handle 12 transit projects, how could they possibly handle 12 transit projects AND highway projects?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 13:59:02 GMT -8
BREAKING NEWS: 30/10 program becomes reality with the first federal commitment going to the Crenshaw LineLA Times
Federal loan to speed work on Crenshaw light-rail lineOctober 15, 2010 | 2:48 pmLos Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s effort to accelerate construction of local transit projects advanced Friday when the federal government announced that it would loan $546 million for a planned light-rail project that would run from the Crenshaw district to a station near Los Angeles International Airport. The assistance is the first federal commitment to the mayor’s so-called 30/10 initiative, which calls for speeding up the completion dates of 12 transit projects planned by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, including the Westside subway extension. "This is a substantial down payment," said Villaraigosa, who was in Washington, D.C., recently to lobby for federal assistance. "The money will help create about 5,000 jobs, free up funds for other projects and allow us to move ahead at an accelerated rate." The loan will cover more than a third of the planning and construction costs of the Crenshaw light-rail project, which is now estimated to cost $1.4 billion. The proposed line would run about 8 1/2 miles from Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards to the Green Line station at Aviation Boulevard near LAX. -- LAistFeds to Loan Metro More than a Half Billion for Crenshaw/LAX Transit LinePublic transportation in Los Angeles today received a boost with the news of a large loan from the federal government. Metro will receive more than a half billion in loaned funds for it's nine-mile Crenshaw/LAX light rail line, which will take riders between the Green Line at LAX and the Expo Line, which is currently under construction. "Today is a very good day," said Senator Barbara Boxer, who made the announcement this afternoon. $546 million dollars from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program will be handed over to Metro, which hopes to break ground on the project in the spring. The $1.4 billion project was originally slated to be built in the 2020s, but the funding means the line could be operation by 2016. The project is one of twelve in the 30/10 plan, which envisions accelerating the construction and completion of 12 transit lines into 10 years instead of 30 years. Funds are guaranteed through Measure R, the 2008 voter approved half-cent sales tax increase that will be used to pay back the federal government. "This is our first confidence building measure to make 30/10 a reality," said Boxer. "What we want to do is take this as a template and a model." "Jobs, transportation and infrastructure is an area where we [Democrats and Republicans] can find common ground and address the need for job creation and infrastructure investment by leveraging what cities and counties are willing to do by putting up their own money," said L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who lauded Boxer and her staff for championing 30/10. He said the unexpected money frees up Measure R funds for other projects. [Added: The project received a $1.45 million grant from the federal government in August for the design of an intermodal transit center at Aviation/Century near LAX. "The Aviation/Century station will be a big one on the Crenshaw/LAX Line. Located at the northeast corner of LAX, the station will be serving both trains on the Crenshaw/LAX Line and also some trains coming up from the Green Line, not to mention the many bus lines serving the area," explained Metro's in-house blog The Source. "LAX officials have also said they plan to build a people mover to connect the airport terminal area to the train station, although those plans are far from finalized."] An official announcement with more details, such as terms of the loan, will be made next Wednesday at a press conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 15, 2010 14:15:19 GMT -8
BREAKING NEWS: 30/10 program becomes reality with the first federal commitment going to the Crenshaw Line Wow, this is huge! Beyond huge, ginormous ;D If the whole 30/10 thing can't be legislated at once, then parceling out $500 million at a time is another way to go. It will be interesting to see in the weeks ahead how this actually impacts the time line. They show 2018 as the nominal revenue service date, and I see a report showing 2016 as the 30/10 Crenshaw date. This is assuming that the $546 million is enough to buy us the whole 2 year time savings. In this specific case, the Crenshaw line, just how does the extra money move up the start date? I assume the environmental documents can't be rushed, so the construction itself must be what is accelerated. Hopefully this is just the first on MANY such announcements. Those people working on the Century/Aviation station with the people mover interconnection better roll up their sleeves and get busy... RT |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 15, 2010 14:26:30 GMT -8
I'll add this too, and it echoes an earlier comment. The "gravy train" appears about to start running. Meaning that it looks like the Feds are going to follow through in some manner on the 30/10 idea. We may very well get all the lines built that we have planned in the next 10 years. This makes it doubly important that there be no more "sinkhole", "Farmdale" or "years long utility relocation" fiascoes. The money will be there, hire the right people, and get the job done right. Don't F* it up in other words RT |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 14:32:32 GMT -8
It's huge indeed. It's a dream becoming reality -- just like Measure R was.
We will see how this will continue. Certainly the midterm elections might end up affecting it. Hopefully this will stay out of the politics and the Tea Party and the likes (in my opinion the same Astroturf® as Fix Expo and NFSR) won't be able to doom it by claiming disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 14:52:01 GMT -8
We should also clarify an important point.
The more important projects -- the Downtown Connector and Westside Subway -- are applying for federal funding. The Crenshaw Line couldn't qualify for federal funding because of poor ridership estimates and costly grade separations. Therefore, it only got a federal loan through the 30/10 program.
The Downtown Connector and Westside Subway must first get the federal grants before they get the additional money as federal loans through the 30/10 program.
Therefore, if you're wondering why one of the less important projects got the loan first, this is the explanation.
In any case what is really important is that the 30/10 program is now rolling. This is more than huge as Mr. Toe said.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 15, 2010 14:55:25 GMT -8
No matter your personal feelings about Mayor Antonio Villairaigosa, but he deserves a lot of credit for going to Washington and lobbying hard for transit projects. He's done multiple trips this year (had a great photo with Obama and LaHood earlier this week!) and he, along with Boxer, helped secure this loan for the Crenshaw Corridor. This Mayor has been a huge boon to LA transit developments from pushing for the Wilshire study, which led Waxman to overturn the federal digging ban, chairing the Metro board when first elected to mayorship, riding Metrolink the Monday after the horrific Chatsworth Metrolink crash to show the safety of commuter rail, to quietly having his office gauge voters for their interest in taxing themselves for transit projects which ultimately led to Measure R.
Even if you do not like his politics on other matters in LA county, Antonio has been great to LA for transit issues! So, besides us thanking Boxer and the federal government for the loan, I think a huge "thank-you" goes to Mayor V as well!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 16:25:09 GMT -8
More news on the commencement of the 30/10 program. 30/10 Initiative: Los Angeles Wins $546 Million Federal LoanHuffington Post | Anna Almendrala First Posted: 10-15-10 07:41 PM | Updated: 10-15-10 07:49 PM$546 million in public transportation funds are coming to Los Angeles via the Tiger II grant, a federal loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation that is "awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region." Mayor Villaraigosa announced the big news via Twitter after the DC press conference, thanking Senator Barbara Boxer and President Barack Obama for their work on the loan. He later tweeted that the project will be breaking "ground in Spring 2011 and creating 5K jobs!"  The $546 million loan is the first coup for Villaraigosa's 30/10 initiative, which aims to "use the long-term revenue from the Measure R sales tax as collateral for long-term bonds and a federal loan which will allow Metro to build 12 key mass transit projects in 10 years, rather than 30." Measure R is a half-cent sales tax instituted in 2008 that aims to raise $40 billion over the next 30 years for public transportation in Los Angeles. Senator Barbara Boxer released a similarly brief statement earlier today, clarifying that the funds would be used for the Crenshaw / LAX Transit corridor, a light-rail line that will connect Exposition and Crenshaw Boulevards to an existing metro stop near LAX. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 17:36:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 2, 2010 20:21:30 GMT -8
Tonight is not nearly a sensational election night when Measure R gloriously passed two years ago. That was unforgettable and what is making rail transit in LA possible.
Barbara Boxer, one of the champions of 30/10, got reelected. Arnold, who always tried to take away the transit money, has now been replaced with Jerry Brown as well.
Also, other rail-related wins are Harry Reid of Nevada, who is pro-high-speed-rail, and the defeat of Prop 23, which would defeat the anti- global-warming and antipollution initiatives.
I think this is really looking good for 30/10. I doubt who controls the house will make any difference (it will be Republicans this time) as far as rail is concerned. Some Republican governors had vowed to kill high-speed rail in their states once elected, but I think they will reverse when they are in power.
Perhaps tonight is the night of the rail again. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 2, 2010 21:52:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 2, 2010 22:35:37 GMT -8
Tonight is not nearly a sensational election night when Measure R gloriously passed two years ago. That was unforgettable and what is making rail transit in LA possible. Barbara Boxer, one of the champions of 30/10, got reelected. Arnold, who always tried to take away the transit money, has now been replaced with Jerry Brown as well.Also, other rail-related wins are Harry Reid of Nevada, who is pro-high-speed-rail, and the defeat of Prop 23, which would defeat the anti- global-warming and antipollution initiatives. I think this is really looking good for 30/10. I doubt who controls the house will make any difference (it will be Republicans this time) as far as rail is concerned. Some Republican governors had vowed to kill high-speed rail in their states once elected, but I think they will reverse when they are in power. Perhaps tonight is the night of the rail again. Any thoughts? I agree it isn't as bad as it might seem, especially for the Golden State. Whitman would have probably effectively killed HSR and she wouldn't have been much of a friend to public transit either. As for 30/10, it is hard to say as this is unchartered territory. It was disappointing that we couldn't get a transport bill out of this Congress and the Infrastructure Bank seems dead unless a miracle deal can happen in the Lame Duck Session. I just don't see a Rep. House allowing for additional public transit funding and for loans to speed them up in enemy territory (sorry but that is how national Repubs. view CA and especially Los Angeles). Hopefully, I am too pessimistic and we can get some sort of transit bill that doesn't gut public transit. I am just not seeing how right now. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 7, 2011 11:26:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 7, 2011 11:28:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 7, 2011 12:44:57 GMT -8
Bringing me tears of joy.... |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 7, 2011 13:42:15 GMT -8
Bringing me tears of joy.... Probably still not high enough for rational pricing of externalities, but it's a move in the right direction. If only the resulting profits could be used for environmental protection and restoration.... |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 7, 2011 20:53:40 GMT -8
$100 is only the beginning.
Just you wait. It's gonna easily hit $120 by the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 8, 2011 7:25:36 GMT -8
I took a look at the gas price spreadsheet. Computed the difference between the February 1st price and the highest price in the summer (June-September). Here is the data, all are % increases:
2005: 43%
2006: 29%
2007: 38%
2008: 49%
2009: 43%
2010: 4%
If you use the February 2011 price of $3.35 as a starting point, then here are some price points based on % increase:
20%: $4.02
30%: $4.36
40%: $4.69
50%: $5.03
Just based on this you would think that $4.00 gas here in LA is a sure thing, historically speaking. Of course, real world events are what drive prices, so anything is possible. Any major unrest and you could probably add $1.00 to each of those numbers.
I think $4.00 gas will start triggering the memories of 2008, and if nothing else, being the round number that it is, will provoke some discussion at a minimum.
I have previously commented on an HSR board that the primary driver of whether HSR will ever be built here in California is neither the cost, nor the NIMBY's, but what the price of oil is. When the cost difference between fossil fuel travel (car, plane, bus) and electric travel becomes great enough, the cost of the system becomes less of an issue. When gas costs as much here as in Europe, the attitudes would be quite different. I think this will happen sooner rather than later. Hopefully the state/country aren't completely bankrupt so as to be able to get the transformation started.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 8, 2011 17:20:39 GMT -8
I have previously commented on an HSR board that the primary driver of whether HSR will ever be built here in California is neither the cost, nor the NIMBY's, but what the price of oil is. When the cost difference between fossil fuel travel (car, plane, bus) and electric travel becomes great enough, the cost of the system becomes less of an issue. When gas costs as much here as in Europe, the attitudes would be quite different. I think this will happen sooner rather than later. Hopefully the state/country aren't completely bankrupt so as to be able to get the transformation started. RT Unfortunately, people don't buy oil, they buy gas. Europe, Japan and basically every other developed country (except for the US and Canada) have high gas taxes to reduce oil consumption, since money spent on oil goes straight to the trade deficit, and straight out of GDP. But here the price of gas is mainly the world price of oil plus refinery and transport costs. To get gas prices up to $6 (less than the price in most European countries today, and people still have cars and suburbs there), we would need oil to be near $200. At that price, and liquid fuel production of about 90 million barrels per day, the world economy would be spending almost $20 billion per day on oil alone, or 6,000,000,000,000 (6 trillion) dollars per year on oil. I don't think the global economy can spend that much energy and wealth on one commodity without causing a recession (which happened last time oil prices got up over $100 per barrel). So basically, unless US policy changes, we will keep wasting our GDP on oil to burn in our SUVs, even as Europe, China, India, Latin America etc. adapt to be productive while using less oil. At least this will continue until our trade deficit (founded on oil imports, not just cheap stuff from China) drags down the economy again. That's why we need a higher price on gasoline, either thru a direct tax, or indirectly via fees on oil production, or carbon, or VMT (vehicle miles traveled). The alternative is to continue destroying the wealth of the United States buy burning it up in our car engines. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 8, 2011 18:29:00 GMT -8
Just a point of clarification, that is the Brent Crude price. The more widely accepted price of a barrel of oil is the NYMEX, which is around $87. Nevertheless, I do agree that we aren't going to see much lower prices in the future. I think there are questions about how high prices can go without causing another recession, which would then reduce demand and so forth. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 18, 2011 20:20:58 GMT -8
I've been told by some that say the accelerated timetable hasn't changed..... not true: Images must be 780 pixels wide or less. Please fix this one.  |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 18, 2011 20:36:59 GMT -8
I've been told by some that say the accelerated timetable hasn't changed..... not true: Image must be resized to be 780 pixels or less in width. Please fix. Of course it's true that it has changed. Any forseeable way the Purple Line opens to Westwood in 2017? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 18, 2011 21:08:25 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim, so what is that a result of, then? Congress taking it's sweet time?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 18, 2011 21:10:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 18, 2011 22:38:42 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim, so what is that a result of, then? Congress taking it's sweet time? Reality is that Metro put out a timeline that was impossible. 2017 to Westwood. Bulls***. The earliest Metro could start digging was 2013. Some of these expected openings make absolutely no sense. 2017 Eastside Phase II? Hello? Are there any environmental reviews happening? No. And that's a minimum 4 year process in LA. Metro/Los Angeles was just being idiotic in their time schedule. It was not reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 19, 2011 11:51:36 GMT -8
Metro did have an updated timeline recently. Last month maybe. They had the estimated start and end dates to the month. IIRC they had expo ll starting late this year and finishing mid-2015. They had Crenshaw starting mid-next year and finishing 2016. They had the connector and subway starting 2013 and finishing 2018 and 2019 maybe. The subway was only phase 1 though. I may be a little off on the dates but it was something like that.
|
|
