|
Post by fissure on Mar 12, 2016 13:03:49 GMT -8
Van Nuys line needs to be finished before Sepulveda Pass (assuming they do the sane thing and make it one continuous rail line) because it's going to be a lot easier to find space for the maintenance facility further north. Land's a lot cheaper in Pacoima than in Sherman Oaks.
WSAB is pretty much guaranteed to be light rail. I don't think BRT was even studied in SCAG's EIR. Also, in the current incarnation, it runs next to the Blue Line from Slauson to Washington, which will get it support from Compton, Long Beach, etc for giving a faster ride to Union Station. It's also supposed to get Measure R funding before GLEE2 or Green Line South Bay, so I'm not sure they would flip that order around.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 12, 2016 13:13:18 GMT -8
What an underwhelming, embarrassing, let down.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 12, 2016 15:27:31 GMT -8
Van Nuys line needs to be finished before Sepulveda Pass (assuming they do the sane thing and make it one continuous rail line) because it's going to be a lot easier to find space for the maintenance facility further north. Land's a lot cheaper in Pacoima than in Sherman Oaks. WSAB is pretty much guaranteed to be light rail. I don't think BRT was even studied in SCAG's EIR. Also, in the current incarnation, it runs next to the Blue Line from Slauson to Washington, which will get it support from Compton, Long Beach, etc for giving a faster ride to Union Station. It's also supposed to get Measure R funding before GLEE2 or Green Line South Bay, so I'm not sure they would flip that order around. I figure the Sepulveda tunnel is a 10-12 year construction project plus 4 years of environmental studies and bidding, so assuming they can allocate funds for those first four years right away in 2017, it's not going to start construction before 2021, and not going to be completed before 2031. Whereas the van nuys line can probably start construction as soon as 2019, and probably be finished by 2024 or 25 if they get started then, so even if it is later in the lineup it still will start construction sooner. GLEE is in public comment phase with a FEIR due before the ballot measure, iirc, it could go out to bidding immediately, and probably start construction by 2018--that's why it's probably a higher in the queue project. West Santa Ana branch, like van nuys, will probably be a couple years behind but I forgot we got the EIR on it. I think you're right though that my order is off, revised guesses: GLEE construction start 2018 Van Nuys construction start 2019 West Santa Ana construction start 2019 or 2020 Sepulveda tunnels construction start 2021. Gold line to montclair, construction start 2025 Green line extension, construction start ? ? ? Vermont and crenshaw line construction start post 2031.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 13, 2016 18:51:49 GMT -8
I'm glad Metro is giving this some extra table time.
Much as I like MoveLA's list of projects, there are simply far too many of them, and too many that are pie-in-the-sky. Example: I love Crenshaw going to Hollywood/Highland, but it's going to take billions and decades. A Crenshaw extension to Wilshire, on the other hand, is logical and would only cost around $1 billion instead of several and would likely take five years instead of fifty.
Overall, I think Metro's list is pretty balanced. Measure R had 12 transit projects.
The big issue I see is incorporating Measure J's "extending the tax" initiative and supporting vague extensions we thought we were already getting, which will lead some people to believe they're voting for the same thing twice. Purple Line acceleration? LAX station? Santa Ana? Gold Line east? 405? Didn't all of these projects appear on Measure R? This could be what makes or breaks people's support.
Metro never bothered to be clear about some of these projects. Take Santa Ana for example. Some maps showed the full line from Union to Santa Ana. Then some maps just showed it running from the Green Line to Santa Ana, or just showed it running from Union to the Green Line. These are massively different ideas that Metro has done a poor job of fleshing out.
In any event, here's 12 projects that I hope make it in some form.
--Gold Line to Montclair: this seems a no-brainer and would be the only way to get the SGV on board. --Green Line to Norwalk: again, no-brainer and would serve the upper gateway cities. --Vermont Subway to Expo: great idea since it gives South L.A. something, but it would need at least 4 stations and massive reconstruction to Wilshire/Vermont. Doable? --Crenshaw Line North: again, Wilshire is the only realistic option, but as long as it's there… --Purple Line to the Beach: this would be a big selling point (much as it was for Measure R), but it looks like it will just be an acceleration to Westwood. Lame. --West Santa Ana: whichever section isn't funded by Measure R (whether it's the north section or the south, who the hell knows?). --405/Sepulveda Line: yes, but outside the section designated by Measure R - so it should be getting us to LAX or at the very least, Expo. --Green Line to South Bay - yes, but again, another project shadily described by Metro. Did the Measure R version get us to Torrence already, or just the South Bay Galleria? If the former, it should go to at least the Harbor Freeway. If the latter, then Torrence. --Van Nuys Line: starting from Orange Line and going to at least the Van Nuys Metrolink station. Anything further is a bonus. --Gold Line East: I don't support either extension, but it seems we have no choice since the East side cannot be left out.
Again, the focus is too much on vague/shady extensions of existing lines and not new, sensible projects that are clear and concise for the public to acknowledge. The first 4 projects on my list are the only ones that don't feel like a bit of a rip-off.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 14, 2016 15:57:19 GMT -8
Van Nuys line needs to be finished before Sepulveda Pass (assuming they do the sane thing and make it one continuous rail line) because it's going to be a lot easier to find space for the maintenance facility further north. Land's a lot cheaper in Pacoima than in Sherman Oaks. WSAB is pretty much guaranteed to be light rail. I don't think BRT was even studied in SCAG's EIR. Also, in the current incarnation, it runs next to the Blue Line from Slauson to Washington, which will get it support from Compton, Long Beach, etc for giving a faster ride to Union Station. It's also supposed to get Measure R funding before GLEE2 or Green Line South Bay, so I'm not sure they would flip that order around. I figure the Sepulveda tunnel is a 10-12 year construction project plus 4 years of environmental studies and bidding, so assuming they can allocate funds for those first four years right away in 2017, it's not going to start construction before 2021, and not going to be completed before 2031. Whereas the van nuys line can probably start construction as soon as 2019, and probably be finished by 2024 or 25 if they get started then, so even if it is later in the lineup it still will start construction sooner. GLEE is in public comment phase with a FEIR due before the ballot measure, iirc, it could go out to bidding immediately, and probably start construction by 2018--that's why it's probably a higher in the queue project. West Santa Ana branch, like van nuys, will probably be a couple years behind but I forgot we got the EIR on it. I think you're right though that my order is off, revised guesses: GLEE construction start 2018 Van Nuys construction start 2019 West Santa Ana construction start 2019 or 2020 Sepulveda tunnels construction start 2021. Gold line to montclair, construction start 2025 Green line extension, construction start ? ? ? Vermont and crenshaw line construction start post 2031. That list looks about right. I think the "internal squabble" reported by LA Weekly must be related to the timing of Crenshaw line, which appears to be way down the list. I think from a network development standpoint, you'd want either Vermont or Crenshaw moved up a bit. From a political standpoint, I think any delay to Crenshaw extension will risk some blowback from West Hollywood and business interests in the Mid City area. Both GLEE are the most "shovel ready" projects so they will go first, no doubt. SGV support is critical so GLEE will not see delays in timing. Van Nuys has to be high priority because SFV is a key swing vote to any transportation tax. I can also see the Sepulveda tunnel moving up the priority as a concession to the car commuters.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 14, 2016 19:05:32 GMT -8
Interesting that sepulveda, crenshaw, Vermont and blue lines will give us four north/south routes, I wonder where the first north south route east of the blue line will occur.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 15, 2016 9:17:19 GMT -8
Interesting that sepulveda, crenshaw, Vermont and blue lines will give us four north/south routes, I wonder where the first north south route east of the blue line will occur. In the discussion of the I-710 North alternatives, BRT was brought up as a possible solution along Atlantic Boulevard. I think an entirely plausible (and inexpensive) plan would be to extend a BRT corridor all the way down Atlantic to the Green Line, which would provide a straight shot, single transfer ride for anyone trying to get to the South Bay region from the SGV.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Mar 15, 2016 21:59:35 GMT -8
There's no station at Atlantic. Would they infill one or run the bus along Imperial Highway to Long Beach Bl? The 762 currently extends to Compton with a transfer to the Blue Line; that's another routing option.
I agree that Atlantic is the logical north-south route east of downtown, though. It would also meet the WSAB line in Cudahy and serve Maywood, which is the densest city in California.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 16, 2016 5:38:59 GMT -8
Yeah Atlantic makes so much sense as it hits so many targets. But should it ever become a light-rail line, after Atlantic ends at Huntington it should tunnel underneath San Marino and run down Lake Ave, perhaps even ending in Altadena. I know, the NIMBY's in San Marino would probably throw a tantrum, especially since it would run near the Langham; but we could then point to the success of the (hopefully) completed-by-then Purple Line running underneath Beverly Hills High School.
At some point, particularly as more lines spread throughout Eastern LA County, the idea of a Rosemead/Lakewood transit corridor should be considered. It would act to a smaller degree in the same way the 405/Sepulveda corridor would in that it would connect various transit corridors letting riders avoid using a bus to go or staying on the trains and having to go all the way to Downtown and THEN backtrack.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 16, 2016 9:36:50 GMT -8
Yeah Atlantic makes so much sense as it hits so many targets. But should it ever become a light-rail line, after Atlantic ends at Huntington it should tunnel underneath San Marino and run down Lake Ave, perhaps even ending in Altadena. I know, the NIMBY's in San Marino would probably throw a tantrum, especially since it would run near the Langham; but we could then point to the success of the (hopefully) completed-by-then Purple Line running underneath Beverly Hills High School. Alternately, it could just turn and run along the huge, huge median of Huntington Boulevard (and if a connection to the Gold Line is needed in Pasadena, there's always Sierra Madre with another huge median). I mean, hell, Pacific Electric fit four tracks along the right-of-way back in the day!
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 16, 2016 14:27:31 GMT -8
There's no station at Atlantic. Would they infill one or run the bus along Imperial Highway to Long Beach Bl? The 762 currently extends to Compton with a transfer to the Blue Line; that's another routing option. I agree that Atlantic is the logical north-south route east of downtown, though. It would also meet the WSAB line in Cudahy and serve Maywood, which is the densest city in California. In-fill station on the Green line @ Atlantic can easily be incorporated into the budget of a full Atlantic Blvd BRT project, just like an in-fill station on Green line @ WSAB will surely be part of WSAB budget. It makes a lot of sense and will boost ridership of both Green line and Atlantic BRT. In fact, I seem to recall Atlantic station was one of the potential station on the Green line before it was value engineered out.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Mar 17, 2016 0:19:59 GMT -8
There's no station at Atlantic. Would they infill one or run the bus along Imperial Highway to Long Beach Bl? The 762 currently extends to Compton with a transfer to the Blue Line; that's another routing option. I agree that Atlantic is the logical north-south route east of downtown, though. It would also meet the WSAB line in Cudahy and serve Maywood, which is the densest city in California. In-fill station on the Green line @ Atlantic can easily be incorporated into the budget of a full Atlantic Blvd BRT project, just like an in-fill station on Green line @ WSAB will surely be part of WSAB budget. It makes a lot of sense and will boost ridership of both Green line and Atlantic BRT. In fact, I seem to recall Atlantic station was one of the potential station on the Green line before it was value engineered out. That's what made the most sense to me too; glad we're on the same page. Were there any other ones? Western seems like it should really have a station; the others that seem like they could make sense are Central and Paramount (though fortunately they skipped it; would be too close to the WSAB crossing), and if you want to get crazy Prairie and Bellflower.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 18, 2016 9:30:48 GMT -8
Is there a link to today's press conference?
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 18, 2016 10:18:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 18, 2016 10:42:03 GMT -8
Well. I'll be 68 when the Crenshaw line reaches Hollywood. So that's fun.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 11:46:24 GMT -8
The only thing I like is the provision for getting the Purple Line to West LA by 2024, which essentially means that all three sections would open around the same time. I've always said that I would be satisfied if we could actually get the subway to the sea by 2030.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 18, 2016 16:24:29 GMT -8
I get that APM station at LAX and Purple Line acceleration are #1 and #2 priorities. But I'm surprised Crenshaw extension and Sepulveda Pass rail are not in the list for "first 15 years"
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Mar 18, 2016 16:49:35 GMT -8
I don't understand why it would take 6 years to construct the 96th Street station. Garcetti mentioned a few weeks ago that the LAX people mover is aiming for a 2021 completion date.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 18, 2016 18:30:18 GMT -8
I don't understand why it would take 6 years to construct the 96th Street station. Garcetti mentioned a few weeks ago that the LAX people mover is aiming for a 2021 completion date. Politician's and transit project dates - *1.5 +/- 10%
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 19, 2016 5:29:41 GMT -8
Lots to process here!
Looking through the document, the plan is certainly ambitious. There are tons of projects earmarked all over L.A. County. Every area basically gets something; the issue being whether it's the right something, and of course, what the timetable looks like (though the timetables seem awfully contrived - the Downtown Streetcar, for example, which residents voted to tax themselves for and was originally set to open in 2015, is now apparently not coming until 2057!).
Despite it all…I can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed. Transit-wise, this is for all intents and purposes a far more scaled-down version of what the 2009 LRTP had in mind for L.A. - several areas originally getting rail are now set for BRT decades in the future (Vermont and Lincoln, which is puzzling considering that rail extensions, though more expensive, make far more sense for a long range plan). Other projects, like the Silver Line LRT and the Burbank/Glendale LRT, have disappeared.
Also as I feared, there is focus on expediting current projects already guaranteed by Measure R. While I certainly support this, it's going to be a really tough sell for the voters who think they already voted to get these projects - the Purple Line to Westwood and the Santa Ana line being the biggest culprits (the Santa Ana line is shadily changed to the 'Artesia' line, with a proposed 'second phase' that would eventually go to Downtown L.A.).
Furthermore, the plan promises extensions of extensions we haven't even gotten yet - what is a voter supposed to think of a 405 line that goes from Expo to LAX when the initial phase of the 405 Line barely even exists as a paper concept? Metro certainly has their work cut out for them if they don't want a repeat of Measure J this November.
We're also looking at some embarrassing holes in the system for some time - the Green Line extension to Norwalk won't be until 2057; there is *no* plan to get the Purple Line to the beach (it is mentioned later on, but without a timetable and would only go to Bundy); no South Bay extension of the Green Line beyond Torrence.
But credit where credit is due: the Gold Line Foothill extension is included (albeit with a weird timetable of 2025 - perhaps the longest ever for a "shovel ready" project), the Orange Line gets its extension to Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena (though the routing is unknown), a phase of the Santa Ana line will be built (but has been bumped from 2024 to 2029) and it looks like we *might* see rail on Van Nuys (the project's definition is still nebulous, even though rail is the obvious alternative).
In the end, it's still just a plan and it can change, but I thought Measure R and the 2009 LRTP promised a far better system than this.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 19, 2016 12:35:15 GMT -8
After looking through this more, I think some of the main concerns are as follows: 1. I think it's a HUGE problem that people are, in essence, voting to fund things that Measure R already ostensibly funded, and then placing those projects behind new projects. I think those facts erode trust in Metro, and make people dubious that the already lengthy timetable won't be adhered to. (And I'll point out that most of the general public isn't cognizant of the nuance that Measure R didn't FULLY fund most of its projects, and learning that is more likely to erode that trust further.) 2. That timetable. We're essentially asking people to vote to pay for things that many will not be alive to see. That is an enormous ask. Sure, planning for future generations may be the right thing to do, but let's be realistic on how people will react to this. 3. One effect of the timetable being so lengthy is that it essentially assures us that certain hoped-for projects will NEVER see the light of day -- like you said, Philip, the yellow and silver lines. And for me personally, I feel the yellow line would be a slam dunk. 4. Some of the more transit-dependent neighborhoods (GLEE) are being told to wait behind less transit-dependent ones (foothill), who have ALREADY had an extension before them. And the original GLEE was part of Measure R! It looks like a nakedly-political move that takes advantage of the fact that transit-dependent communities will probably vote for this no matter what, whereas the less-transit dependent communities will have to be catered to a bit.
So how can Metro address these deficiencies in the final version of this ballot measure? Here's some ideas: 1. Make a crystal-clear distinction that this ballot measure contains 2 parts that are as follows -- first, an extension of Measure R (Measure J, essentially) that accelerates Measure R projects, and have ALL of those projects first on the timetable; and second, a new half-cent sales tax that, while also helping accelerate further the Measure R projects, gives us new projects. 2. This may sound crazy, but find a way to make this a 20-year plan. Even if it means taking into account rosy assumptions about matching federal funds. Which would mean pulling a Measure-R and not fully-funding some projects from the tax. Be transparent about what is and isn't fully-funded, and outline possible avenues to cover those shortfalls that will not include a further tax, but rather possible federal or state sources of funding. One possibly-sticky, but possibly-effective approach to this is to fund studies on a wider number of new projects immediately, setting aside partial funds to meet them, and commit to covering a certain percentage of those projects no matter what, and covering all of them if matching funds can be located through non-tax means. This would mean some of the later projects MIGHT not happen at all, but it gives people a chance to continue fighting for their projects, and a hope that they may happen. 3. I'm a little confused about the Sepulveda tunnel project -- my understanding is that they're pursuing it as a P3 combined highway/rail project to bring Metro's cost burden down, but it looks to me (I may be wrong) that the assumption in the expenditure plan is that Metro is pursuing both the highway and metro tunnel AND covering the whole cost. Either subtract the assumed savings a P3 would give you from the plan to move the project up in the timeline, or eliminate the highway aspect of the tunnel. Considering the nightmare that the highway tunnel terminal construction would unleash on the Westside, I honestly think many people would probably still be happy with the Sepulveda rail project if the toll tunnel was left out. 4. Build phases one and two -- van nuys and the pass tunnel -- of the sepulveda line simultaneously, and put shovels in the ground for both as soon as humanly possible. 5. In summation, I think the project breakdown should be as follows: A. Measure R projects that will absolutely get built first: Accelerate the purple line to VA, full sepulveda line (van nuys-LAX, all rail), airport connector, whittier GLEE alignment, WSAB union-artesia, green line to torrance. These were promised in 2008, and for Metro to seem trustworthy, they have to come first. B. New projects with guaranteed full funding: Gold line foothill 2B (guaranteed because yes, we need their votes), Crenshaw north to hollywood (massive positive impact for system circulation overall, plus serving dense communities), AT LEAST BRT from NoHo to Pasadena (rail option below), AT LEAST BRT on Vermont (same), AT LEAST BRT on Lincoln (same). C. Projects guaranteed to be studied, with a portion guaranteed to be built based on competitiveness, with all being built if matching funds can be secured: LRT NoHo-Pasadena, LRT Vermont, LRT Lincoln, Orange line LRT conversion, Yellow line LRT, Purple line to the sea, green line to Norwalk metrolink, green line to long beach, and maaaaaaybe LRT slauson.
Obviously, it would take a LOT of outside funding for ALL of C to get funded, but by promising at least an unstated portion of those will get funded, and that all will be studied, and that Metro will fight for ALL to get funded, I think you bring more people into the fold. Essentially, you're promising certain things in the short term but keeping long-term looser, which, in my mind, is definitely the way to go, because whenever you prognosticate forty years into the future and set concrete plans, let's be honest, those plans will change. What you think will work best in forty years NOW will not actually be ideal when that time arrives. So by leaving the door cracked further open on what those longer-term projects are, it brings more people into the fold, gives them more hope that their projects will be built, and appears more realistic, and thus, more trustworthy.
Granted, I haven't run the numbers, so I don't know how realistic the project breakdowns in columns A/B/C are (B/C might have to shift a little bit), but I do think going further in this direction will help metro get people on board with the plan.
Or maybe I'm totally wrong. I dunno. You tell me!
|
|