|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 14:47:21 GMT -8
bluelineshawn, If I asked you the question from the opposite perspective, what would your answer be... Why should I have to pay for the entire transit project X (insert project name here) over only 5 or 10 years, when people will be using it for the next 50 years? It's not fair that I should be paying for something that they are going to get to use when they don't have to pay anything... RT I understand that, but suppose that people in the 70's thought the same way and built three times the miles of freeway that we have now and left us stuck with the bill since we are the ones benefiting from their vision? Would you support that in retrospect? Don't you think that you should have some say in how your money is being spent? Like I said, I have no objection to taxing us for stuff that we want, but I do have a problem with taxing future generations to avoid unpopular taxes on ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 14:53:33 GMT -8
I don't know that what bzcat said was "completely false" He stated that I was confusing Measure R+ and America Fast Forward and that Measure R+ was not intended to borrow money to fast-track current Measure R projects, both of which are false. He was correct that America Fast Forward is dead for now, so he wasn't completely false.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 15:01:56 GMT -8
Measure R costs the average Los Angeles County resident $20 a year. Condemning our city's future because we balked at a tax of $20 a year is unfair and irresponsible. Are you discussing Measure R+ or Measure R? Measure R+ doesn't kick in until 2039 and the idea is to borrow that money to pay for stuff today.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 15:04:09 GMT -8
Measure R costs the average Los Angeles County resident $20 a year. Condemning our city's future because we balked at a tax of $20 a year is unfair and irresponsible. We have lots of poor people in LA County so most of us pay much more than that. But like I said, I have no problem taxing myself and I'm willing to pay more for more today. My problem is with asking people living from 2039 onward to pay for it because we'd rather not.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 19, 2012 16:35:03 GMT -8
Measure R costs the average Los Angeles County resident $20 a year. Condemning our city's future because we balked at a tax of $20 a year is unfair and irresponsible. We have lots of poor people in LA County so most of us pay much more than that. But like I said, I have no problem taxing myself and I'm willing to pay more for more today. My problem is with asking people living from 2039 onward to pay for it because we'd rather not. The comment on poor people paying more doesn't make sense at least to me. I think you meant to say that $20 is a lot of money to poor people. Somebody buying a $30k car is going to pay $150 extra because of Measure R. Poor people are not spending anywhere near that kind of money on their non-food purchases. People who make much more money are also the ones spending more money. Granted for some poor people, the relative amount of sales tax may be higher than what the wealthy pay of their income, but the absolute amount is no where close.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 19, 2012 18:32:50 GMT -8
We have lots of poor people in LA County so most of us pay much more than that. But like I said, I have no problem taxing myself and I'm willing to pay more for more today. My problem is with asking people living from 2039 onward to pay for it because we'd rather not. The comment on poor people paying more doesn't make sense at least to me. I think you meant to say that $20 is a lot of money to poor people. Somebody buying a $30k car is going to pay $150 extra because of Measure R. Poor people are not spending anywhere near that kind of money on their non-food purchases. People who make much more money are also the ones spending more money. Granted for some poor people, the relative amount of sales tax may be higher than what the wealthy pay of their income, but the absolute amount is no where close. No, I didn't mean that. I wasn't clear, but what I meant was that it's only $20 on average because there are so many poor people in LA that spend very little on taxable items. Those of us that are not poor spend quite a bit more than that. And again as I've stated several times, I have no problem paying more to fund transit. That's not the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 21, 2012 9:17:11 GMT -8
Masonite posted this bit in another thread from Metro's Q&A on extending Measure R (the entire thing is on The Source): Before we dream up all these new lines here is a tidbit from Metro: The Measure R extension would first complete funding for the original Measure R transit projects. After those are done, funds would go to unfunded phases of Measure R projects and then to projects without funding in the agency’s long-range plan.
New Measure R funds would not be available until after 2050, according to Metro staff. However, other funding sources could be available earlier.Not sure if this means items like Crenshaw to Hollywood and Subway to SM are unfunded phases of Measure R projects or not. If so, Measure R+ plus would just fund lines like those as well as the 405 line maybe to Expo and up to Sylmar as well as the Santa Ana Row maybe to Downtown. Everything else will have to wait until after 2050, so I think it is pretty silly to have a list of projects that won't be completed until well after the midpoint of the next century. Well, those "unfunded phases" of Measure R projects will keep us busy for a while (Purple Line to Santa Monica, 405 to LAX, Crenshaw to Hollywood, Santa Ana to downtown), so that sounds about right. And honestly, as much as I would like to see a Burbank/Glendale line or a Vermont line, finishing these Measure R unfunded segments should take priority. We already have enough gaps in the system; it's a smart move to try to avoid any more.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 21, 2012 12:11:28 GMT -8
Masonite posted this bit in another thread from Metro's Q&A on extending Measure R (the entire thing is on The Source): Before we dream up all these new lines here is a tidbit from Metro: The Measure R extension would first complete funding for the original Measure R transit projects. After those are done, funds would go to unfunded phases of Measure R projects and then to projects without funding in the agency’s long-range plan.
New Measure R funds would not be available until after 2050, according to Metro staff. However, other funding sources could be available earlier.Not sure if this means items like Crenshaw to Hollywood and Subway to SM are unfunded phases of Measure R projects or not. If so, Measure R+ plus would just fund lines like those as well as the 405 line maybe to Expo and up to Sylmar as well as the Santa Ana Row maybe to Downtown. Everything else will have to wait until after 2050, so I think it is pretty silly to have a list of projects that won't be completed until well after the midpoint of the next century. Well, those "unfunded phases" of Measure R projects will keep us busy for a while (Purple Line to Santa Monica, 405 to LAX, Crenshaw to Hollywood, Santa Ana to downtown), so that sounds about right. And honestly, as much as I would like to see a Burbank/Glendale line or a Vermont line, finishing these Measure R unfunded segments should take priority. We already have enough gaps in the system; it's a smart move to try to avoid any more. Thanks. I am admittedly terrible about posting in the right spots.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 21, 2012 19:20:37 GMT -8
From Metro's Q&A: I have one BIG problem with this list: the Regional Connector. Even without Measure R+, the Connector was always going to open in 2019. Various reports and stories have confirmed this. Now, all of a sudden, we need Measure R+ to do this? Since when?!
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 22, 2012 14:53:28 GMT -8
From Metro's Q&A: I have one BIG problem with this list: the Regional Connector. Even without Measure R+, the Connector was always going to open in 2019. Various reports and stories have confirmed this. Now, all of a sudden, we need Measure R+ to do this? Since when?! However that graphic is correct because under the original Measure R expenditure plan and LRTP, the expected opening for Regional Connector was FY2025. True this doesn't change this now when the LRTP passed moving Regional Connector up with the Subway to Westwood as a FTA New Starts funding priority. Measure R + is for its more for accelerating the subway to reach Westwood 14 years sooner, Eastside Phase 2, South Bay Green Line and LAX extensions. Sepulveda Pass and West Santa Ana Corridors need further definition but even those will be accelerated significantly with Measure R+.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 23, 2012 6:03:27 GMT -8
They will have no choice but to add the Foothill Phase II to this list. I bet they kept it off as a negotiation tactic. Once you consider the length of the Gold line, distance based fare starts to seem like an inevitability.
|
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Jun 29, 2012 10:13:53 GMT -8
I did some analysis and posted it on Streetsblog. I'll cross-post it here because it may be of interest.
One of the big issues with Measure R is that the revenue forecast and funding commitments were completed in 2008, based on figures prior to 2007 - which were growth years. LAEDC data produced at the time of Measure R indicated that a 0.5% sales tax would generate $630M per year in 2006, which seemed to inform initial projections. Actual Measure R receipts have been lower (http://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/taxes/) because of the economic downturn.
Some (rough, 20 minute) spreadsheet financial analysis yields information about why R+ is necessary to not only accelerate Measure R projects, but to complete them. In order to hit $40B in nominal dollars committed in the expenditure plan, (http://www.metro.net/measurer/images/expenditure_plan.pdf), sales tax receipts will need to grow an average of 5.2% per year between 2012 and 2039. While growth like this would be very nice, there's a high probability that average growth will be lower than 5.2%. If that's the case, Metro will need more money to construct the Measure R projects. Where can that money come from? Measure R+.
Assuming a 3% growth rate on 2011 Measure R receipts and current 30-year municipal bond interest rates 3.16% nominal interest rate yields:
> Measure R might actually be worth ~$28B rather than $40B (nominal over 30 years)
> The Net Present Value of Measure R (2009 to 2039) is actually $16.4B, versus an expected $22.2B if Measure R was actually worth $40B (nominal). Net present value is what Metro would get if it borrowed against future Measure R receipts to accelerate projects. So there's about $5.8B gap that needs to be covered.
> The Net Present Value of Measure R+ (2039 to 2069) is $15.6B (my projections). If LA county hits 5.2% growth, the NPV will be $40B).
> Measure R+ produces ~$9.8B NPV in excess of the current Measure R gap. That can mean more or expanded projects, like Sepulveda Pass Rail and more Metrolink improvements. Of course, it can also go to fill in gaps if projects end up costing more than initial projections (this tends to happen a lot).
My takeaways from this mini-study are that municipal debt is cheap right now, and Metro should take advantage of this opportunity. If municipal debt rates increase, this will erode the NPV of Measure R+, making it more challenging to complete Measure R Projects (even if they don't have cost overruns) and to construct additional projects.
|
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Jun 29, 2012 10:28:25 GMT -8
I should add that the above analysis is fairly conservative. If congress expands the TIFIA program in the transportation bill, Metro's staff report says the agency will have access to a 2.17% interest rate at 35-year term for up to 49% of project costs. Metro could borrow the balance at muni bond rates. Such a scenario would produce excess funding in addition to the $9.8B.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 29, 2012 12:35:55 GMT -8
I should add that the above analysis is fairly conservative. If congress expands the TIFIA program in the transportation bill, Metro's staff report says the agency will have access to a 2.17% interest rate at 35-year term for up to 49% of project costs. Metro could borrow the balance at muni bond rates. Such a scenario would produce excess funding in addition to the $9.8B. Juan, Very good analysis. Congress just passed the expanded TIFIA today in the Transpo Bill. Over the next several months we should find out just what Metro's plans are with the money they can borrow at the lower interest rates. RT
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 29, 2012 18:43:07 GMT -8
I did some analysis and posted it on Streetsblog. I'll cross-post it here because it may be of interest. One of the big issues with Measure R is that the revenue forecast and funding commitments were completed in 2008, based on figures prior to 2007 - which were growth years. Juan, I think that your intentions are good, but I'm not sure about your assumptions. For one thing, while Measure R was proposed during growth years, the sales tax revenue was intentionally low-balled so that it wouldn't be caught short. To date Measure R is ahead of estimates and the amount being spent is below estimates. Maybe you are misreading the information in your link? Also the sales tax revenue from 2010 to 2011 grew by over 9%in just that one year. To date Measure R is ahead of schedule. The 2011-2012 numbers should be out soon, so we'll see if things are still looking good.
|
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Jun 29, 2012 20:24:53 GMT -8
bluelineshawn, According to the LAEDC report I read, a 0.5% sales tax would have generated about $630M in 2006. $598M in 2011 receipts falls short of any projections of growth.
The economy will eventually recover, and if the notional value of Measure R ends up being $40B or higher, that will all be gravy. However, if Metro can get the 2.17% interest rate from TIFIA mentioned in the staff report, then shortfalls on that $40B are less significant. If inflation exceeds 2.17%, the TIFIA money is essentially free (negative real interest rate) and Metro can realize significant cost savings by moving all of the projects forward in time.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 29, 2012 22:37:28 GMT -8
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 1, 2012 20:38:33 GMT -8
Here is my priority list for R+ funding Section A - strategic projects (must fund) 1. Purple line to Santa Monica (as far west as we can go) 2. Crenshaw line northern extension (aka Pink line) from Expo to Red line North Hollywood 3. 405 Corridor southern extension from Westwood to LAX 4. Orange line SFV-SGV "cross-town line" extension (I'm ok with this being BRT but don't mind LRT conversion) from North Hollywood to Pasadena via Chandler and Colorado Blvd 5. North-South B-G-V line (Burbank-Glendale-Vermont Ave) 6. Santa Ana Branch extension from Green line to Downtown LA 7. Green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink Section B - Long term projects (should be included if on pending funds availability basis) 8. Red line extension to Burbank Airport 9. Green line extension to Santa Monica from LAX 10. Crenshaw line south extension from Torrance to Long Beach airport via Sepulveda and Willow St 11. North-South SGV/Long Beach line from Acadia to CSULB via Rosemead and Lakewood Blvd 12. East-West Westwide/SGV line from Venice Beach to SGV via Venice Blvd, Soto St, and Valley Blvd (serves different areas than the existing Expo-Gold line) Maps (because everyone loves maps!): goo.gl/maps/aWSDI like this list, both because it serves a variety of corridors across the county and also segments them by priority. The only disagreement would be with extending the Red Line to Burbank Airport; I don't believe this would generate nearly as much benefit as other projects for the cost it would require. If HSR places its station near Burbank Airport, then at least there would be two major ridership generators, making it more likely to yield a high level of benefit. One corridor no one has mentioned is either PCH or the Valley/Ardmore Red Car alignment in the South Bay. This is an area with high residential density and significant traffic congestion, though low levels of transit ridership today. FYI, there were several components to the America Fast Forward plan. Congress did pass the increase in TIFIA loans from the federal government, but it did not include federal guarantees for municipal bonds. Measure R+ is a good idea because it will generate benefits for future taxpayers, take advantage of historically low interest rates and construction contractor availability, and because without, we might not be able to build our current Measure R projects due to the massive, unanticipated drop in sales tax revenue that has taken place since then.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 21, 2014 18:59:43 GMT -8
I feel like things have changed a bit in the three-four years since this thread began. the no new projects Measure J went down in defeat, and a new Measure will go on the 2016 ballot, presumably.
I feel like the new Measure really will be and R-PLUS it's going to be almost all extensions of existing lines and measure R projects. It'll take those projects and add to it.
With that in mind, what's likely to be included?
Purple Line to Santa Monica
Red/Purple Line to Arts District
Red Line to Burbank Airport
Crenshaw line Phase 2, connecting to the purple and red line (at la brea and at hollywood highland respectively)
Greenline eastward
Gold Line Eastside Extension phase 2
Gold Line Foothill Extension phase 2
Orange Line Extension to somewhere
Sepulveda Corridor/405 phase 2 and possibly 3 (presuming they fund and build a minimum 2-4 stop line from UCLA/Purple line to Ventura Blvd or the Orange Line with Measure R money (I hate the idea of a mega tunnel partnership), but begin the phase 2 (to LAX) and 3 (north into the valley, maintenance facility probably there) construction before phase 1 has finished. all broken up like that to make funding more likely, and they've got plenty of time with the purple line not getting there until 2035 (what a joke!)
New Lines they might build:
a 4-6 stop HRT Pink line Subway connecting the Red Line to the Purple line via West Hollywood (meeting the purple line at La Cienega, Rodeo or Century City. This is HRT because it would need to use the Red Purple Line maintenance yard as there is no way to accommodate it otherwise. I think it is extraordinarily unrealistic to expect the Crenshaw line to wobble over to WeHo in the touristy lackadaisical manner of the inane high speed rail route, that alignment will be studied but almost certainly rejected even before the DEIR. But WeHo will still need to be served. I envision a minimum 5 stop route: Hollywood Highland (probably a new station with a pedestrian walkway, possibly sharing the box with the Crenshaw line, possibly a two level box because of that), SantaMonica/LaBrea, SantaMonica Fairfax, Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai/La Cienega, and connecting to the purple line at La Cienega, Rodeo or Century City, Century City would be ideal, and even a stop at Wilshire/Santa Monica would be pretty great on that alignment, but this line is going to be EXPENSIVE, so optional stations may be dropped rather quickly and an alignment to La Cienega chosen. This may piss off WeHo if the line isn't primarily Santa Monica Blvd, but instead skips to the JEM location of Cedars Sinai.
My other dream line would be a Ventura Blvd line, but that would probably need to be HRT as well and I don't think the funding could support it.
I feel like the focus is going to be on extending the Crenshaw line to connect to the two other lines and that's going to nix the slam dunk of a Vermont Ave Subway for now, especially as Metro will be needing to pour a lot of money into the rest ofthe county to offset all the Crenshaw, purple and pink extensions, but perhaps long range, it will happen, and who knows maybe we could get a Vermont phase 1 to the Green line included.
In any event, by the time the subway opens in 2035, we won't even ride public transport anymore since self driving cars will have killed it.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 22, 2014 11:53:09 GMT -8
The Red line extension to Arts District could be funded from some other source... it won't be that expensive. I think. I will rehash my old post below. My opinion is still the same... if we have a Measure R+, the top 7 projects must be included. No buts, no ifs, no howevers. Project 8-12 are optional and will probably not happen until my 16 months old son is in retirement age. Here is my priority list for R+ funding Section A - strategic projects (must fund) 1. Purple line to Santa Monica (as far west as we can go) 2. Crenshaw line northern extension (aka Pink line) from Expo to Red line North Hollywood 3. 405 Corridor southern extension from Westwood to LAX 4. Orange line SFV-SGV "cross-town line" extension (I'm ok with this being BRT but don't mind LRT conversion) from North Hollywood to Pasadena via Chandler and Colorado Blvd 5. North-South B-G-V line (Burbank-Glendale-Vermont Ave) 6. Santa Ana Branch extension from Green line to Downtown LA 7. Green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink Section B - Long term projects (should be included if on pending funds availability basis) 8. Red line extension to Burbank Airport 9. Green line extension to Santa Monica from LAX 10. Crenshaw line south extension from Torrance to Long Beach airport via Sepulveda and Willow St 11. North-South SGV/Long Beach line from Acadia to CSULB via Rosemead and Lakewood Blvd 12. East-West Westwide/SGV line from Venice Beach to SGV via Venice Blvd, Soto St, and Valley Blvd (serves different areas than the existing Expo-Gold line) Maps (because everyone loves maps!): goo.gl/maps/aWSD
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 22, 2014 13:50:04 GMT -8
The Red line extension to Arts District could be funded from some other source... it won't be that expensive. I think. I will rehash my old post below. My opinion is still the same... if we have a Measure R+, the top 7 projects must be included. No buts, no ifs, no howevers. Project 8-12 are optional and will probably not happen until my 16 months old son is in retirement age. Here is my priority list for R+ funding Section A - strategic projects (must fund) 1. Purple line to Santa Monica (as far west as we can go) 2. Crenshaw line northern extension (aka Pink line) from Expo to Red line North Hollywood 3. 405 Corridor southern extension from Westwood to LAX 4. Orange line SFV-SGV "cross-town line" extension (I'm ok with this being BRT but don't mind LRT conversion) from North Hollywood to Pasadena via Chandler and Colorado Blvd 5. North-South B-G-V line (Burbank-Glendale-Vermont Ave) 6. Santa Ana Branch extension from Green line to Downtown LA 7. Green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink Section B - Long term projects (should be included if on pending funds availability basis) 8. Red line extension to Burbank Airport 9. Green line extension to Santa Monica from LAX 10. Crenshaw line south extension from Torrance to Long Beach airport via Sepulveda and Willow St 11. North-South SGV/Long Beach line from Acadia to CSULB via Rosemead and Lakewood Blvd 12. East-West Westwide/SGV line from Venice Beach to SGV via Venice Blvd, Soto St, and Valley Blvd (serves different areas than the existing Expo-Gold line) Maps (because everyone loves maps!): goo.gl/maps/aWSDI don't necessarily disagree with your listing so much, but it is completely unbalanced and would never get on the ballot in the first place. People in the South Bay and SGV are not going to vote for something that doesn't guarantee funding for some projects in their regions. Having the Gold Line Extension to Claremont is a necessity to begin with for political purposes. Same with a South Bay Extension of the Green Line. Even then, the top 3 projects are all many billions of dollars and all are considered to be in West LA. People in the SGV are not going to go for $750M for their Gold Line and then $15B for subway projects on the Westside. The Valley is going to be upset at no money to convert the Orange Line to light rail as that seems to have some momentum of late. A lot of these other projects have no ROW. We might be able to do a short subway for the Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink, but for items like #5, #9, #11, and #12 I think would never get through planning. I think something more likely is the Subway to the Sea will be extended to Bundy, and the Crenshaw Line will go to the Purple Line. That is realistic. The 405 Line from Sylmar to LAX is likely to be a PPP with a premium fare charged. Some people won't like this, but that is the only way this is going to get built in total. Sylmar to LAX will be something like $10B otherwise and would soak up a lot of a sales tax just on its own.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 22, 2014 18:20:15 GMT -8
I think it's insane to suggest the subway would be extended only to Bundy, I think most rail advocates would oppose something that unacceptable. A Crenshaw extension to just the Purple line would also be unacceptable, if they're going extend Crenshaw north, they'll have to go to the Red Line. Anything less is absurd to contemplate.
Subway to the Sea will be Metro's top priority. Politically and Publicity wise nothing else comes remotely close to being as significant. They'll complete the last miles and three stations to make that happen, they're not going to just blip another 1/2 mile down wilshire for a single new station. I doubt anyone would have the balls to put something that pathetic on the ballot. The only one stop extensions I can imagine them bothering with are the Arts District stop and at the other end of the red line, the one stop extension to Burbank Airport.
It's probably two billion for the Purple Line to Santa Monica extension. That's within reason they're dumping that much money down the Crenshaw line.
Crenshaw will probably be Metro's second priority, because it will facilitate so much connectivity. It will probably cost another two billion. But they're already blowing 2 billion on the first phase, so they can cough it up for the second phase. One thing that will not happen is Crenshaw will never service west Hollywood. it will be a La Brea or Highland route, and never go further west than that.
However, you're very right that after those two projects, Metro will have to spread the wealth around the county after allocating four billion for the top two priorities. Goldline extensions will both happen, an orange line extension and possibly also an orangeline upgrade will also happen. Figure another six-seven billion for that, now we're at 11 billion already allocated, figure another 3 billion allocated to other line options elsewhere around the county and we've hit the 14 billion that Measure R set aside for Rail construction (35% of 40 billion Measure R would raise).
Now Best case scenario is that the new measure would be a half cent and raise 40 billion as well, and that we could juggle the division of money around some more and get 40% for rail construction for this ballot initiative. That would free up another two billion. That last two billion might be available for more rail construction west of downtown. I would think that a five stop pink line from Hollywood Highland to the Purple Line would be feasible, and provide even more interconnectivity as well as serving the constituency that supports transit more than any other.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 22, 2014 18:31:32 GMT -8
One thing to note about an HRT pink line -- the connecting structure that would've allowed it to connect to the purple line (which is needed for maintenance yard access even if you don't interline the purple and pink lines) is no longer in the purple line designs. Granted, this vote would be in 2016, so it's feasible that they could change their minds before construction would actually take place, but one reason why it wasn't included was apparently because an HRT pink line didn't have the ridership to meet federal cost-effectiveness goals (for getting federal loans, I assume?). This seems to be a major driver of the notion that the crenshaw north should take the pink route along san vincente/santa monica.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 22, 2014 18:39:28 GMT -8
I think it's insane to suggest the subway would be extended only to Bundy, I think most rail advocates would oppose something that unacceptable. A Crenshaw extension to just the Purple line would also be unacceptable, if they're going extend Crenshaw north, they'll have to go to the Red Line. Anything less is absurd to contemplate. Subway to the Sea will be Metro's top priority. Politically and Publicity wise nothing else comes remotely close to being as significant. They'll complete the last miles and three stations to make that happen, they're not going to just blip another 1/2 mile down wilshire for a single new station. I doubt anyone would have the balls to put something that pathetic on the ballot. The only one stop extensions I can imagine them bothering with are the Arts District stop and at the other end of the red line, the one stop extension to Burbank Airport. It's probably two billion for the Purple Line to Santa Monica extension. That's within reason they're dumping that much money down the Crenshaw line. Crenshaw will probably be Metro's second priority, because it will facilitate so much connectivity. It will probably cost another two billion. But they're already blowing 2 billion on the first phase, so they can cough it up for the second phase. One thing that will not happen is Crenshaw will never service west Hollywood. it will be a La Brea or Highland route, and never go further west than that. However, you're very right that after those two projects, Metro will have to spread the wealth around the county after allocating four billion for the top two priorities. Goldline extensions will both happen, an orange line extension and possibly also an orangeline upgrade will also happen. Figure another six-seven billion for that, now we're at 11 billion already allocated, figure another 3 billion allocated to other line options elsewhere around the county and we've hit the 14 billion that Measure R set aside for Rail construction (35% of 40 billion Measure R would raise). Now Best case scenario is that the new measure would be a half cent and raise 40 billion as well, and that we could juggle the division of money around some more and get 40% for rail construction for this ballot initiative. That would free up another two billion. That last two billion might be available for more rail construction west of downtown. I would think that a five stop pink line from Hollywood Highland to the Purple Line would be feasible, and provide even more interconnectivity as well as serving the constituency that supports transit more than any other. Keep in mind that it is about 7 miles from Crenshaw/Expo to Hollywood Highland via La Brea. With that all underground or at least the vast majority, you are looking at well over $3B. More like $4B if it goes up Fairfax or La Cienaga. Most of the rest of the county does not like the Subway to the Sea and doesn't feel Santa Monica should have 2 rail lines. I think it would be great, but try convincing someone in Rosemead or Downey. I heard Denny Zane speak and even he said there was a lot of opposition to going to Santa Monica and thought Bundy would be a good compromise to at least get the line West of the 405 and west of much of the traffic that goes with it. It also would be a straight shot to Expo a mile down Bundy. However, it is all up in the air right and speculation so we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 23, 2014 11:25:57 GMT -8
One thing to note about an HRT pink line -- the connecting structure that would've allowed it to connect to the purple line (which is needed for maintenance yard access even if you don't interline the purple and pink lines) is no longer in the purple line designs. Granted, this vote would be in 2016, so it's feasible that they could change their minds before construction would actually take place, but one reason why it wasn't included was apparently because an HRT pink line didn't have the ridership to meet federal cost-effectiveness goals (for getting federal loans, I assume?). This seems to be a major driver of the notion that the crenshaw north should take the pink route along san vincente/santa monica. good point, iirc, it's no longer in the designs for the La Cienega station, I suppose it's still possible it could be for the next phases of the purple line.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 23, 2014 14:36:18 GMT -8
As I've said before, a new ballot needs county-wide appeal if it's going to pass. Measure R had it, and it barely was approved back in '08.
By that reckoning, here is what I think a successful new ballot measure should include (and not be limited to):
--Crenshaw Line to Wilshire: serves South L.A. and Mid-City areas. --Red Line to Valley Plaza OR Sherman Way for Metrolink connection: serves the San Fernando Valley. --Gold Line to Montclair: serves the San Gabriel Valley. --Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink Station: serves the eastern zone of South L.A. --Purple Line to Santa Monica: serves the west side.
These five, I would say, are strong because 1) they cover a wide variety of areas, 2) will be attractive to both new and current riders, 3) offer much in the way of connections, and 4) are reasonable in terms of cost (I don't see any of these being more than $2 billion).
There are other viable projects for sure, but many of them are just too costly or complicated to build.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 23, 2014 15:05:37 GMT -8
As I've said before, a new ballot needs county-wide appeal if it's going to pass. Measure R had it, and it barely was approved back in '08. By that reckoning, here is what I think a successful new ballot measure should include (and not be limited to): -- Crenshaw Line to Wilshire: serves South L.A. and Mid-City areas. -- Red Line to Valley Plaza OR Sherman Way for Metrolink connection: serves the San Fernando Valley. -- Gold Line to Montclair: serves the San Gabriel Valley. -- Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink Station: serves the eastern zone of South L.A. -- Purple Line to Santa Monica: serves the west side. These five, I would say, are strong because 1) they cover a wide variety of areas, 2) will be attractive to both new and current riders, 3) offer much in the way of connections, and 4) are reasonable in terms of cost (I don't see any of these being more than $2 billion). There are other viable projects for sure, but many of them are just to costly or complicated to build. I'd largely agree with that. I think the Gateway Cities would want a full Santa Ana Corridor much more than a Green Line Extension to Metrolink. No one down there seems to care much for the Green Line Extension, even though it is a great regional project. Also, the South Bay is going to need something. Probably a Green Line (to me this should really be the Crenshaw Line though) Extension further into the region. Finally, I think the Burbank Airport extension accomplishes the same as Sherman Way and is already on the Long Range Plan so I'd expect that. I realize some people don't see that for the extension, but I just think it is the better project and more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 23, 2014 22:09:21 GMT -8
I agree the South Bay needs something, but the problem is the only viable projects are extensions to either Long Beach or San Pedro, both of which I think would be way too expensive.
Santa Ana is covered under Measure R, though perhaps a Phase 2 could be incorporated, if the entire corridor isn't covered. That said, South L.A. would already be covered with the Green and Crenshaw extensions.
And while I understand the appeal of Burbank Airport as an extension of the Red Line, I still can't quite get behind it - namely since it's rather poor location for a terminus and will be difficult to extend elsewhere from that area.
The Valley Plaza route, on the other hand, has potential to connect to two Metrolink lines (a future northward extension would reach the Antelope Valley Line), serves a very transit-dependent area, and will be less expensive since you could build almost all of it above ground (elevated over Laurel Canyon).
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 24, 2014 7:01:07 GMT -8
Guys, There was a Source post back on January 14th that gave an update on the 2016 ballot work being done. Here is a link to the source article, and the 99 page document in question. Most of the early pages look to show various sub-regions and what their list of desired projects is. thesource.metro.net/2014/01/14/metro-board-to-consider-beginning-development-of-ballot-measure-for-2016/And then they show the current list from the 2009 LRTP of what they think will definitely be in the package, and right below that is a "potential" list for inclusion. This being from page 51:
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 24, 2014 11:54:17 GMT -8
It's worth remembering that we're going to get DEIR for the Gold line Eastside Extension phase two and the DEIR for the Green Line Torrance extension in the next few months. I think it's telling that the Crenshaw blvd corridor is currently undefined, but is also under planning study rather than just looking for further project definition; that suggests to me that they're going to look at a lot of options. They'll study going just to the Purple line and they'll study going to the Red Line as well. I really think they'll wind up with an almost pure north route, going all the way to Hollywood Highland via La Brea rather than the west hollywood wobble route. Also note, that in the Tier One projects there are only the subway to the sea and the crenshaw extension that serve the highly served areas, the other FIVE tier one projects serve the rest of the county. And setting aside the streetcars, there is only the Vermont Subway in the Tier 2 projects (and Vermont will almost certainly be set as the lowest priority of those seven projects due to the expense, so it's probably the least likely), which again suggests that the Red Line and Crenshaw are Metro's top priorities. Reading between the lines, I really think that means they're already planning on putting all resources into the Subway to the Sea rather than trying to fund other projects and suffer the political firestorm of a Subway to Nowhere (Bundy). Poor west hollywood, no pink line for another six decades. What on earth is the Yellow line LRT between North Hollywood and the regional connector? Anyone also want to hazard what the route of the Burbank/Glendale to Union Station LRT would be? That is the only Tier One project that is not an Extension. And I do think it's important to note how many extensions Metro is studying in comparison to totally new lines. They want to build out the existing lines, it seems like, and as I said, it really makes the whole Measure an R+, the Plus stands for extension.
|
|