|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 26, 2014 13:59:04 GMT -8
What's more, if there is going to be an orange to gold connection through glendale, it could happen much easier if the orange line extension is still a bus. Politically they'd be forced to tunnel under glendale to get an orange line light rail extension through the city. Really? Crenshaw didn't get the tunnel they wanted, and Brand isn't much narrower. They'd have to remove the median and convert diagonal parking to parallel parking, but they wouldn't have to remove any traffic lanes to fit rail there. I guess it's similar to Van Nuys in that there's a ton of car dealerships along the route, who are for obvious reasons not rail-friendly. Burbank is the part that needs tunneling---there's no easy way to get from the end of Chandler to Glenoaks and Providencia. As for the Glendale and even Van Nuys CBD parking concern one smart mitigation is to build parking structures in the business areas, it does two things; - Earns political buy-in because you will need to provide the replacement parking for the fear of losing business because of a perceived lack of parking
- Gives you the cover to replace the surface parking into a use that moves people (bike lanes, bus lanes, dedicated at-grade LRT)
You're essentially providing the mitigation before the mitigation is even asked to temper concerns. As the area grows and intensifies that parking structure can be a money maker and community transformer as it will consolidate the other surface lots and have them available for development. On the surface it seems backwards and anti-smart growth but parking strategies like these are the central focus to build successful vibrant/pedestrian friendly communities because you're eliminating the potential setback and enable active alternatives to surface. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 26, 2014 22:34:08 GMT -8
Interesting! Conversion of the Orange Line from bus to LRT has been discussed here before. The idea of an LA-Glendale-Burbank-North Hollywood line that links to the Orange Line has been floated about. Even a Pasadena to Glendale et al. extension has been bandied about, but as a busway; we do have thread dedicated to that. What we don't have is an "Orange Line Conversion: Bus to LRT" thread. We'll probably need that if he wins and actually makes good on his rhetoric. We do have a dedicated thread for converting Orange line to light rail: transittalk.proboards.com/thread/911/upgrade-light-rail?page=1&scrollTo=16022Thank you bzcat. Gawd, that thread is burried! Is there any way of bringing it to the Valley-Westside sub-head? |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 27, 2014 10:42:38 GMT -8
Deric, that's brilliant, like Santa Monica's super successful parking garages around the promenade, Glendale would absolutely go for that.
The trendy planning strategy of turning parking into a luxury good is really shortsighted and unpopular, I love this proactive and probably popular alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Nov 15, 2014 18:46:41 GMT -8
Went to a meeting that Metro had this week on the continuing process for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (aka Van Nuys blvd line). The project manager said that they have heard from the community very loudly that LRT is preferred. The LRT is now partially subway at Roscoe Blvd due to width of the street and they are proceeding with planning along San Fernando Rd and the Metrolink right of way (which is 100ft) now that High Speed Rail is using a different approach to enter the valley. The time for the LRT is 29 minutes from Sylmar Metrolink to the Orange Line, much faster than any other option. The throughput of the Van Nuys line, which is a combination of the LRT and local buses for this corridor (could be wrong as it was a chart that was shown very quickly) was over 47,000 riders which just murdered (sorry but not much of an exaggeration) any other option. The Tram option was put in as an option because of the LRT popularity. The cost of the Tram was well over 1 Billion dollars and it would travel in vehicle lanes and that the local buses on Van Nuys Blvd would be removed because the Tram would have around 28 stations along Van Nuys (basically a bus on rail). I can see why they would do that but there was some grumbling about it.
Metro also said during their presentation that the immediate region around the Van Nuys line has a bigger population than the cities of Atlanta, Miami and a third city which all have rail transit. Maybe Metro was preaching to the choir since the Valley has close 2 Million people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village on Nov 16, 2014 11:15:51 GMT -8
Van Nuys subway!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 16, 2014 14:29:22 GMT -8
That's fabulous news. Good to know they're listening to the community. When you say subway at Roscoe do you mean just in the immediate area around Roscoe, or south of Roscoe all the way to the orange line?
|
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Nov 16, 2014 15:18:06 GMT -8
That's fabulous news. Good to know they're listening to the community. When you say subway at Roscoe do you mean just in the immediate area around Roscoe, or south of Roscoe all the way to the orange line? The presentation given at the San Fernando Valley Service Council Meeting had a map that showed the subway section being 2.5 miles from Parthenia to just south of Sherman Way with 3 stations underground at Sherman Way, the Metrolink Station and just north of Roscoe. East San Fernando Valley Corridor Study UpdateThey show a total length of 9.2 miles. This is 2.5 miles on the ROW along San Fernando Rd. and 6.7 miles along Van Nuys Blvd. (2.5 miles of subway and 4.2 miles of at grade dedicated guideway in the median. They are also showing 14 stations, butI have a feeling that some stations would be cut in order to bring down the cost. The projected cost is 2.6 billion and currently measure R provided 170 million which leaves a 2.43 billion to be found from other sources. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 16, 2014 15:40:37 GMT -8
That's fabulous news. Good to know they're listening to the community. When you say subway at Roscoe do you mean just in the immediate area around Roscoe, or south of Roscoe all the way to the orange line? The presentation given at the San Fernando Valley Service Council Meeting had a map that showed the subway section being 2.5 miles from Parthenia to just south of Sherman Way with 3 stations underground at Sherman Way, the Metrolink Station and just north of Roscoe. East San Fernando Valley Corridor Study UpdateThey show a total length of 9.2 miles. This is 2.5 miles on the ROW along San Fernando Rd. and 6.7 miles along Van Nuys Blvd. (2.5 miles of subway and 4.2 miles of at grade dedicated guideway in the median. They are also showing 14 stations, butI have a feeling that some stations would be cut in order to bring down the cost. The projected cost is 2.6 billion and currently measure R provided 170 million which leaves a 2.43 billion to be found from other sources. Alternative 4 is very similar in track mileage, underground mileage, and cost to the Crenshaw/LAX LRT, yet currently, Van Nuys Boulevard bus ridership is higher than Crenshaw Boulevard, and there's no parallel Metro Rail or alternative to Van Nuys Boulevard service - Van Nuys Boulevard as LRT will be the trunk north-south line of the San Fernando Valley, connecting two civic centers, San Fernando & Van Nuys, providing access to the highest density residential tract in the SFV at Panorama City, providing access to the soon to be opened San Fernando Valley Family Support Center (a Los Angeles County run service) near the Van Nuys Metrolink station, along with new housing developments at Van Nuys Boulevard & Sherman Way (behind Walgreens), and hopefully the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor to UCLA, Purple Line, Expo Line, & LAX.  |
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on Nov 17, 2014 12:31:50 GMT -8
It often seems that Metro shows their long term intentions if you read into their short term decisions. I wonder if this hints at LRT being the future method for the Sepulveda Pass? A single seat ride from Sylmar to the Purple/Expo and access to West LA jobs... and perhaps direct access to Venice/Marina Del Rey/LAX in the future.
An LRT Sepulveda Pass tunnel could possibly service multiple lines in the Valley, as well. You could have 2-4 minute headways through the tunnel, branching out into slightly lower headways on the valley lines, similar to many suburban commuter lines all over the world.
Seems to me that an LRT decision for the East Valley could be fairly monumental for the long term development of the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 17, 2014 14:54:51 GMT -8
It often seems that Metro shows their long term intentions if you read into their short term decisions. I wonder if this hints at LRT being the future method for the Sepulveda Pass? A single seat ride from Sylmar to the Purple/Expo and access to West LA jobs... and perhaps direct access to Venice/Marina Del Rey/LAX in the future. An LRT Sepulveda Pass tunnel could possibly service multiple lines in the Valley, as well. You could have 2-4 minute headways through the tunnel, branching out into slightly lower headways on the valley lines, similar to many suburban commuter lines all over the world. Seems to me that an LRT decision for the East Valley could be fairly monumental for the long term development of the system. Exactly, which is a key reason to let the studies play themselves out. Doing an automatic combine would practically guarantee that this long term network thinking doesn't happen. This is how I envision a Sepulveda Pass Corridor to be a longer Regional Connector style approach with eventually multiple lines running between Valley and Westside utilizing segments of existing and eventual LRT tracks. The ultimate form of investment and practicality. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 17, 2014 14:58:38 GMT -8
At least a few of those stations can be lost if they need to bring down the cost.
Eliminate Victory, Vanowen, Laurel Canyon, and the I-118 stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuckchuck on Nov 17, 2014 15:32:38 GMT -8
I agree that the decision to go with LRT is a good one but I wonder if HRT would be even better. I think the number of people who use the Sepulveda pass daily to get the Santa Monica, Westwood, and Century City is HUGE and will quickly overwhelm the system just as the Orange Line obliterated ridership projections. It would be a shame to have a conversation about upgrading the LRT to HRT when the purple line hits maturity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 17, 2014 16:45:41 GMT -8
Is current ridership justifiable to warrant HRT service? I don't ride the 761 regularly, but I would imagine it should be transporting tens of thousands, if not hundreds, every day for HRT to be considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 17, 2014 19:01:21 GMT -8
At least a few of those stations can be lost if they need to bring down the cost. Eliminate Victory, Vanowen, Laurel Canyon, and the I-118 stops. 10 stations for about 9.3 miles seems about right. 14 stations is too many IMHO for optimal operations. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 18, 2014 11:07:57 GMT -8
I agree that the decision to go with LRT is a good one but I wonder if HRT would be even better. I think the number of people who use the Sepulveda pass daily to get the Santa Monica, Westwood, and Century City is HUGE and will quickly overwhelm the system just as the Orange Line obliterated ridership projections. It would be a shame to have a conversation about upgrading the LRT to HRT when the purple line hits maturity. The light rail vs. heavy rail debate is long been settled so no point opening it up again. LA will not see another heavy rail project outside the Purple Line extension. The one thing to remember is that the main difference between light rail and heavy rail metro in North America is how electricity is conducted - heavy rail powered by 3rd rail while light rail is powered overhead catenary wire. They both use the same standard gauge and you can specify light rail cars to be high capacity or heavy rail to be medium capacity... Basically, capacity is not restricted by how electricity is conducted. |
|
|
|
Post by chuckchuck on Nov 18, 2014 15:01:34 GMT -8
The one thing to remember is that the main difference between light rail and heavy rail metro in North America is how electricity is conducted - heavy rail powered by 3rd rail while light rail is powered overhead catenary wire. They both use the same standard gauge and you can specify light rail cars to be high capacity or heavy rail to be medium capacity... Basically, capacity is not restricted by how electricity is conducted. If you're saying LRT cars can be made large enough to transport the same volume of people per car as HRT then I'm all for it. I took the Light in Light Rail too literally. I guess the appeal of LRT in an already built out environment is the flexibility to provide at grade crossings without fear of people/animals/debris contacting the third rail. Does that sound about right? I'm not as knowledgeable about the Van Nuys corridor as some of the other posters here. Are there any major employers along this route? I seem to remember most of the office buildings along Ventura being around the Sepulveda intersection and along Ventura east of the 405. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 18, 2014 17:55:17 GMT -8
The one thing to remember is that the main difference between light rail and heavy rail metro in North America is how electricity is conducted - heavy rail powered by 3rd rail while light rail is powered overhead catenary wire. They both use the same standard gauge and you can specify light rail cars to be high capacity or heavy rail to be medium capacity... Basically, capacity is not restricted by how electricity is conducted. If you're saying LRT cars can be made large enough to transport the same volume of people per car as HRT then I'm all for it. I took the Light in Light Rail too literally. I guess the appeal of LRT in an already built out environment is the flexibility to provide at grade crossings without fear of people/animals/debris contacting the third rail. Does that sound about right? I'm not as knowledgeable about the Van Nuys corridor as some of the other posters here. Are there any major employers along this route? I seem to remember most of the office buildings along Ventura being around the Sepulveda intersection and along Ventura east of the 405. Really doubt they'd be able to have more than 3 car trains if it is going to operate above ground for an extended portion as trains become too long and back up into intersections. They might be able to design for 4 car trainsets, but we'll see. Also, above ground light rail is limited in frequency. The Blue Line may be at capacity down the line because they can't run longer trains and they can't run more frequent trains due to all the crossings. Expo may be in the same boat eventually too. The Red Line and Purple Line have 6 car train sets (the train capacity is slightly different vs. the light rail cars, but the basic point applies). Also, they are talking about running 4 minute headways on the Purple Line in the future. I assume that means the Red Line too would get the 4 minute headway, which would mean the Downtown combined Purple/Red corridor would have 2 minute headways. Combine that with the bigger trainsets and you are talking much higher ridership capacity. Light rail is not even in the same ballpark here. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 18, 2014 23:46:10 GMT -8
If there were going to be a second hrt in LA the van Nuys corridor and Sepulveda pass would be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 19, 2014 17:38:30 GMT -8
I think HRT on Vermont, Whittier, and Valley/Garvey avenues make more sense than here, for a few reasons:
Interfacing with other rail lines.
There just doesn't appear to be as a high population density along Van Nuys route as opposed to to those corridors (though employment density is a slightly different story).
The problem is that whatever is going to be built on this corridor, it's only a matter of time that people will want to extend it all the way down to LAX once they see how successful it is. With HRT that is gonna be ridiculously expensive. And when you DO get to LAX, then what? There's no other HRT line to interface with it, so you have to establish a new route (PCH??)... and up the costs go again, particularly once you inevitably have to deal with the local NIMBY herds.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 21, 2014 21:22:09 GMT -8
I agree that the decision to go with LRT is a good one but I wonder if HRT would be even better. I think the number of people who use the Sepulveda pass daily to get the Santa Monica, Westwood, and Century City is HUGE and will quickly overwhelm the system just as the Orange Line obliterated ridership projections. It would be a shame to have a conversation about upgrading the LRT to HRT when the purple line hits maturity. The key to the corridor is to have the section through the core portion of the route completely grade separated to enable multiple LRT lines to run on short headways on the trunk of the line, think Regional Connector. That will enable other corridors such as the Orange Line once that is converted to LRT and up Van Nuys Blvd where the ridership potential will drop for a full HRT corridor but enough capacity and demand for LRT. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 22, 2014 14:28:25 GMT -8
I agree that the decision to go with LRT is a good one but I wonder if HRT would be even better. I think the number of people who use the Sepulveda pass daily to get the Santa Monica, Westwood, and Century City is HUGE and will quickly overwhelm the system just as the Orange Line obliterated ridership projections. It would be a shame to have a conversation about upgrading the LRT to HRT when the purple line hits maturity. The key to the corridor is to have the section through the core portion of the route completely grade separated to enable multiple LRT lines to run on short headways on the trunk of the line, think Regional Connector. That will enable other corridors such as the Orange Line once that is converted to LRT and up Van Nuys Blvd where the ridership potential will drop for a full HRT corridor but enough capacity and demand for LRT. That is probably the best plan, especially from an operations standpoint. Under this I'd see an Orange Line conversion to rail east of Van Nuys with the more lightly used western portion remaining BRT. People west of Van Nuys could access the North South line via Metrolink/Amtrak, the Orange Line and regular bus lines. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 22, 2014 15:10:38 GMT -8
The key to the corridor is to have the section through the core portion of the route completely grade separated to enable multiple LRT lines to run on short headways on the trunk of the line, think Regional Connector. That will enable other corridors such as the Orange Line once that is converted to LRT and up Van Nuys Blvd where the ridership potential will drop for a full HRT corridor but enough capacity and demand for LRT. That is probably the best plan, especially from an operations standpoint. Under this I'd see an Orange Line conversion to rail east of Van Nuys with the more lightly used western portion remaining BRT. People west of Van Nuys could access the North South line via Metrolink/Amtrak, the Orange Line and regular bus lines. Not surprisingly, Metro did float the idea of the Orange Line service to be rail in the east SFV and BRT in the west SFV, it's listed as alternative 5 in the original " San Fernando Valley East-West Transit Corridor" study that progressed from a 1980s proposal to bring the Red Line HRT as far as the current Orange Line Sepulveda Station. (page 90 of 108)  There was a recent blog regarding operating the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor subway as a trunk connection. My idea would be a bit simpler and use Van Nuys station as the LRT connector to provide the following services as long as the ESFVTC, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Lines are all LRT: Sylmar/San Fernando to West LA, or continue to Santa Monica via Expo Line Sylmar/San Fernando to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to West LA Santa Monica to North Hollywood (this would entail operating on the Expo Line, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Line LRT) |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 22, 2014 15:41:36 GMT -8
That is probably the best plan, especially from an operations standpoint. Under this I'd see an Orange Line conversion to rail east of Van Nuys with the more lightly used western portion remaining BRT. People west of Van Nuys could access the North South line via Metrolink/Amtrak, the Orange Line and regular bus lines. Not surprisingly, Metro did float the idea of the Orange Line service to be rail in the east SFV and BRT in the west SFV, it's listed as alternative 5 in the original " San Fernando Valley East-West Transit Corridor" study that progressed from a 1980s proposal to bring the Red Line HRT as far as the current Orange Line Sepulveda Station. (page 90 of 108) There was a recent blog regarding operating the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor subway as a trunk connection. My idea would be a bit simpler and use Van Nuys station as the LRT connector to provide the following services as long as the ESFVTC, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Lines are all LRT: Sylmar/San Fernando to West LA, or continue to Santa Monica via Expo Line Sylmar/San Fernando to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to West LA Santa Monica to North Hollywood (this would entail operating on the Expo Line, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Line LRT) Expo will be just about maxed out with 6 minute headways so interlining it with another line would be pretty much impossible. They are going to have enough trouble with the 6 minute headways in Santa Monica. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 24, 2014 14:37:56 GMT -8
Not surprisingly, Metro did float the idea of the Orange Line service to be rail in the east SFV and BRT in the west SFV, it's listed as alternative 5 in the original " San Fernando Valley East-West Transit Corridor" study that progressed from a 1980s proposal to bring the Red Line HRT as far as the current Orange Line Sepulveda Station. (page 90 of 108) There was a recent blog regarding operating the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor subway as a trunk connection. My idea would be a bit simpler and use Van Nuys station as the LRT connector to provide the following services as long as the ESFVTC, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Lines are all LRT: Sylmar/San Fernando to West LA, or continue to Santa Monica via Expo Line Sylmar/San Fernando to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to West LA Santa Monica to North Hollywood (this would entail operating on the Expo Line, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Line LRT) Expo will be just about maxed out with 6 minute headways so interlining it with another line would be pretty much impossible. They are going to have enough trouble with the 6 minute headways in Santa Monica. Expo maxing out is more to do with the current configuration on the eastern end of the line in Downtown LA with 7th Street Metro Center. Once Regional Connector opens that constraint is eliminated and capacity is enhanced. Also with the Santa Monica terminal, I don't know how the switching is set up because of the track configuration of having 3 tracks and multiple platforms that should improve operations to enable more runs on that end. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 24, 2014 15:54:36 GMT -8
Expo will be just about maxed out with 6 minute headways so interlining it with another line would be pretty much impossible. They are going to have enough trouble with the 6 minute headways in Santa Monica. Expo maxing out is more to do with the current configuration on the eastern end of the line in Downtown LA with 7th Street Metro Center. Once Regional Connector opens that constraint is eliminated and capacity is enhanced. Also with the Santa Monica terminal, I don't know how the switching is set up because of the track configuration of having 3 tracks and multiple platforms that should improve operations to enable more runs on that end. Pretty sure I saw that one of the initial risks with phase 2 construction was achieving 5 minute headways in SM as they were having trouble achieving even that. I don't think they can get below that, but I will be happy to be proven wrong |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 25, 2014 11:19:08 GMT -8
There was a recent blog regarding operating the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor subway as a trunk connection. My idea would be a bit simpler and use Van Nuys station as the LRT connector to provide the following services as long as the ESFVTC, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Lines are all LRT: Sylmar/San Fernando to West LA, or continue to Santa Monica via Expo Line Sylmar/San Fernando to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to North Hollywood, or to the Gold Line in Pasadena if extended eastward Chatsworth to West LA Santa Monica to North Hollywood (this would entail operating on the Expo Line, Sepulveda Pass subway, & Orange Line LRT) Wouldn't it be easier operationally to just have 1 E-W line and 2 N-S lines? I'm not sure the branch option from Sylmar to Pasadena is necessary - people can transfer where all three line meets. The reason for 2 N-S lines is to maximize the capacity thru Sepulveda Pass, otherwise, I would even just go with 1 N-S line and have people transfer to Expo at Sepulveda Station. E-W Chatworth to Pasadena N-S Sylmar to LAX N-S Sylmar to Santa Monica |
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on Nov 25, 2014 17:49:07 GMT -8
Since we are spitballing, another option is to run it like a three pronged fork. SFV<->LA Basin produces a lot more trips than SFV<->SGV I would imagine, so a service pattern with more N-S options may better serve riders. Also, this would allow for heavy service in the dense areas through eastern Santa Monica, Venice, Marina Del Rey, and Manchester. It would also move a lot of people between Purple/Expo/Green/Crenshaw transfer points along the LA portion of the line, in addition to servicing its Valley duties. Assuming the Sepulveda pass project stays fully grade separated south of Van Nuys, maybe three N-S options at 10 minute headways: -Sylmar to LAX -Chatsworth to LAX -Pasadena to LAX (for a combined 3.3 minute headways from LAX through the tunnel) Plus a Chatsworth to Pasadena E-W run. You could mitigate the complexity of the system by using the Van Nuys point where all the lines merge as a sort of metering point to trains entering the tunnel run, smoothing out scheduling differences from their at grade running, similar to how LIRR meters its inbound trains at Jamaica. Of course, I'll probably be a goner before it happens, but its fun to think about.  |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 26, 2014 10:19:06 GMT -8
The problem with 3 branches is frequency on each of the branch... Right away, you can see that the Sylmar to LAX branch will probably be overcrowded with 10 minute headways during rush hour. And your southern portion has too much service... Westwood to LAX every 3 minutes? Who is going to ride all those trains?
I still think 2 branches on the north side of the tunnel is the max that make sense. Maybe something like this:
[Sylmar] - Van Nuys Blvd - [tunnel to Westwood] - Sepulveda Blvd - [LAX] - every 10 minutes
[Sylmar] - Van Nuys Blvd - [tunnel to Westwood] - Shortline terminus at Expo Line [Sepulveda Station] - every 10 minutes
[Chatworth] - Orange Line/Canoga - [tunnel to Westwood] - Sepulveda Blvd - [LAX] - every 10 minutes
So Van Nuys/East SFV will get a train every 5 minutes and Canoga/West SFV will get a train every 10 minutes through the pass to better match the likely ridership.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jan 28, 2017 21:57:33 GMT -8
It's been a long time since I was last here, but does anyone know what the status is. Is Metro still holding the draft EIR close to it's chest and since they programmed 1.3 Billion with Measure M, I assume that means that the project is going to a Tram and not LRT since the LRT was over 2.5 Billion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 29, 2017 19:52:22 GMT -8
It's been a long time since I was last here, but does anyone know what the status is. Is Metro still holding the draft EIR close to it's chest and since they programmed 1.3 Billion with Measure M, I assume that means that the project is going to a Tram and not LRT since the LRT was over 2.5 Billion. Not necessarily. Maybe they're anticipating the Feds to pony up some funds. Although with the great Oompa Loompa now at the helm, all bets are off. |
|
