|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 24, 2007 10:46:16 GMT -8
From what I have read Mayor Villaraigosa is also advocating an additional sales tax as Ken is suggesting, and not the use of current Prop A and C funds. Still we'll likely need more than just that to build the comprehensive system that we're all looking forward to. We might need some combination of additional: property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, airline taxes, business taxes, etc. Man that's a lot of taxes! It would be a tough sell, but as our system grows and becomes more used and more useful it should get easier to sell the idea of additional lines. And in theory fares should end up paying for a greater percentage of the operating costs and free up additional money.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Dec 24, 2007 19:21:59 GMT -8
BTW guys, could you give us a heads up on what proposition gonna be on the ballot for February?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 26, 2007 11:10:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 26, 2007 13:06:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 26, 2007 13:37:56 GMT -8
...and perhaps we can lean on Waxman and the rest of Congress to come up with the money to pay for the county's "second subway", which is the Downtown Light Rail Connector, while the county prepares for the Wilshire Subway to be extended either to Century City or even Westwood and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 27, 2007 4:37:56 GMT -8
Second, it's a joke to pretend that there's no big difference between the two parties on this issue, and there wouldn't be a total sea change between a Democratic president and the Bush administration. Let's test this theory out in the field, Damien. At the very best we will see an incremental change in transportation policy if a Democrat is voted in. Keep in mind, though, that Congress sets the actual level of funding via appropriations. The president gives it an up-or-down vote. You should be more concerned with the Senate and House races. The Senate is slightly competitive; the House much less so. Also, keep in mind that Democrats do not have the internal party discipline of the Republicans. The ideological range is broader in the Democrats, meaning it's hard for a liberal, moderate and conservative Dem to agree. Then, I get to the part where I tell you that the voters are a non-integral component of the electoral system. The cynical interpretation of the franchise is that the most vital role voting serves is harm reduction. It's better to give the illusion of democracy working than to simply do away with the system, since people will know they won't matter and glom on to whatever personality cult helps destroy the system. Politics runs like any other business. Look at the Democrats and Republicans not as ideologically divergent parties but as two brokerage firms, Fidelity and Charles Schwab, out angling for market share. Both are businesses in the sense that they have bills to pay and do so by carrying out services. The service they perform is the brokerage of influence. Who has more influence? The "electorate," where the large majority of this great nation does not even bother to show up on their assigned day of duty, and those that do remain vote for a candidate based on the narrow confines of their own intellects and those who do not end up picking the eventual winner in effect have their franchise nullified? Or, people and businesses who desire the influence-brokerage services of these two firms and maintain business relationships for the entire tenure of the term, not just election day? Campaign finance is huge business. And economically, nothing a bloc of voters can and will do beats the efforts of a lobbyist. Lobbyists maintain connections year-round, through an entire term. Lobbyists bring in more revenue to the influence-brokerage firms. Lobbyists also have the luxury of the field bet, where they can contribute money to both parties. Voters can only vote for one person to hold an office. Listening to voters is, in a word, bad business. So we have the system of checks and balances and a well-financed political action industry to ensure rainfall over sunny optimism in politics.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 27, 2007 6:17:10 GMT -8
As I've said before, and this comes from years of exposure and efforts in this arena, both parties have their champions and their villains when it comes to transportation. Republicans use weird, dogmatic mantras when their "libertarian" sides kick in to oppose sufficient transportation spending, and Democrats talk about higher transportation spending but do so only after other lobbies get their cut, which usually means a mere SLIGHT increase in transportation spending but a whole lotta spending in other budgetary priorities FIRST.
Both parties have a decrepit record as of late when it comes to transportation spending, and no one has the guts to suggest that all budgetary priorities should be spent well, and be spent in a more balanced and efficient way to reflect the needs of our society.
...and so long as our society does not, as wad points out, vote appropriately we will continue to be exploited by special interests and end up with a lopsided and out-of-touch budgetary and spending system in Sacramento and Washington.
...that said, I have a disregard for both the old "Clinton haters" and the current "Bush haters" who foam at the mouth and don't add anything rational to the discussion, but I will say that our previous President, who had some hits and misses but overall led us through a good economy, was rather pro-transportation. Our current President, who also had some hits and misses (and with whom I have a few profound differences of opinion) but who also overal led us through a good economy, is rather anti-transportation in that everything transportation is "pork" but is meanwhile willing to spend gazillions of dollars on defense, education and health care initiatives that (overall) were meant well but has been burdened by wasteful spending.
I do not see any leading Democratic or GOP Presidential contenders, nor any leading Democratic or GOP Congressional leaders, as being anything but willing to spend more on transportation than Mr. Bush, who is for any variety of reasons (observations, not moral criticism here, mind you) is anti-train and anti-transportation spending compared to just about everyone in Washington.
I envision more spending and more voter/politician awareness of our transportation needs in the years to come, and a bipartisan desire to improve our economy, our environment and our quality of life domestically vis-a-vis more transportation spending.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 27, 2007 10:22:42 GMT -8
Key fact 1: Voters tend to be property owners. The more you own, the likelier you are to vote. The opposite is true, as well.
Key fact 2: Property owners tend to vote in the interest of their property values. I don't think this is over-generalizing.
Corollary 1: Transit will begin to receive greater funding only when property owners see their property values directly tied to the transit budget. But as long as the beneficiaries of transit are non-property owners (which tends to be the case), transit will get short-changed.
Corollary 2: The Democratic party tends to favor transit construction. This is because cities tend to be have more Democrats, and property values in cities tend to rise when transit systems are built.
Some here have written how ineffectual the Dems are as a party. I somewhat agree. But I also believe that if the Democrats win the White House and retain at least one house of Congress, their lack of party cohesion will be less of an issue, and transit projects will be approved because it is in the interest of their property-owning constituents.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Dec 27, 2007 11:13:58 GMT -8
Global warming can affect property values too. If a property owner faces an increase of water shortage, wildland fire hazards, and heat related illnesses near his/her property, I think that should wake the owner up on the issues of global warming. Sprawl and car-centered development... More traffic, more pollution, more global warming. Ah, something has to be changed or down goes the property value... Forget property value, there's other stuff that's more important in relation to global warming! Then, he/she may think: Hey, maybe clean transportation technologies such as walkable cities, job/housing balance with lower income housing for service-based workers, TOD, clean transit busses, heavy/light rail running from renewable electricity sources, and CA HSR may not be such a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 27, 2007 11:21:10 GMT -8
Tony brings up a good point--yes, this current President is probably as anti-transportation (especially anti-mass transit), but it was a Democrat (Waxman) that stopped tunnelling to begin with, and it was other Democrats (Burke, Yaroslavsky) who have fought the Expo Line and Wilshire Line planning and funding in the past. I think the real issue is not red vs. blue, but urban vs. suburban vs. rural. Support for transit is greatest in cities which tend to be supportive of Democrats and mass transit is a very low priority in rural areas which tend to elect Republicans. It is a Republican (at least in name) Mayor who finally got the long-desired 2nd Avenue Subway in Manhattan rolling after decades of stall. It is Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican David Dreier working together that will most likely secure any federal funds for the foothill extension of the Gold Line. We need to raise support for transit in both major parties. The Greens put the Democrats to shame on this issue and the Libertarians seems opposed to any idea of common good or mass transit at all. Public transit has it's best chance of funding when it has broad support across the political spectrum. When Republican suburbanites support increases in rail transit to help them with their commutes, mass transit can finally pass. Waxman and Yaroslavsky's deplorable record on this issue until relatively recently should give everyone pause. There are no shortage of opportuntistic policitians willing to side with NIMBYs to stop transit projects for their own short-term political gain. Let's just be glad that none of our major elected officials are actively supporting the BRU. But lets reach out to everyone in the broadest coalition possible.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 27, 2007 11:26:05 GMT -8
Also, it was a bipartisan agreement to throw transportation funding under-the-bus (so to speak) in last year's state budget fight because both major parties didn't value transportation as much as low taxes (Republicans) or other social services (Democrats).
This is why Proposition 91 needs to be approved even if its original sponsors think it is no longer necessary. The governor and state legislators need to get the point reaffirmed that gauging transportation funding is not acceptable.
But, I agree that we need to repeal Yaroslavsky's tragic and opportunistic measure.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 27, 2007 15:07:43 GMT -8
Again...well said, Dan! If the GOP had its political base in the denser cities, they'd be more pro-mass transit because of "efficiency" or something like that. Fortunately, the suburbs are more pro-mass transit (don't know about rural areas yet).
...and YES, I favor Proposition 91!!! Where's the harm in passing it if it's "no longer necessary", especially if it'll prevent more transportation grabs by Sacramento.
If we get more county funding for transit in general, then it would be clear to all that Yaroslavsky's measure needs to go.
That said, we now know exactly where the Subway needs to go, unlike before when we had all kinds of competing ideas and inefficiency. It'll go down Wilshire and maybe with a Santa Monica Blvd. segment to include West Hollywood and all of Beverly Hills. I do think the Eastside got shafted (no pun intended), but perhaps we can build more underground segments of light rails as well.
But for the time being, I look forward to the repeal of Zev's Law because it is no longer necessary (and, for the record, I proudly voted "no" when it was on the ballot).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 27, 2007 23:19:28 GMT -8
But for the time being, I look forward to the repeal of Zev's Law because it is no longer necessary (and, for the record, I proudly voted "no" when it was on the ballot). I too voted no on Zev's Law, but since it only applied to Prop A and C money for which there is no more available, we don't have to go through the process of repealing it, which might actually be much tougher than people think (remember it passed easily and most people in LA County wouldn't be near the subway). Many freeways would probably get a no vote as well if they were voted on individually. It seems the one major obstacle for the Subway to the Sea is funding (aside from some home owners in Hancock Park). It would be nice to see an updated estimate of costs to build the subway given the advances in tunnel boring. It seems as if light rail costs are going up and subway costs may be increasing much slower or even flattening, but all the media can seem to report is that a subway is too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 28, 2007 0:23:42 GMT -8
It would be nice to see an updated estimate of costs to build the subway given the advances in tunnel boring. It seems as if light rail costs are going up and subway costs may be increasing much slower or even flattening, but all the media can seem to report is that a subway is too expensive. It depends on the cost and how many passengers are carried. With the subway's existing ridership, it's a good thing it's underground. Light rail is never going to see the San Diego miracle again, though.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 28, 2007 8:34:20 GMT -8
There are few ROWs left for light rail. Except for the Harbor Subdivision, and the unused foothill ROW, where else can we build light rail? I think there is no choice in the future except to go aerial or subway.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 28, 2007 9:46:42 GMT -8
The problem isn't the "ROWs," since ROWs technically exist down Vermont, Santa Monica Blvd, Crenshaw, La Brea/Hawthorne, Van Nuys, Venice, etc. And there are a couple of "true" ROWs in the Southeast county that would provide an amazing I-5 alternative and east-west alternative miles from a freeway.
The problem also isn't the size of the vehicles, as our light rail vehicles are larger than many if not most European subway cars.
The problem is the alignment: at-grade.
The cost effective solution is to build a grade separated network with "light rail vehicles" and station that have the capacity to easily expand to four-car platform length in 15-20 years if necessary, and little less easily but feasibly expand larger and larger vehicles in 35-50 years if necessary.
The whole debate of what is and what is not light rail is an interesting one. Typically the definition has been limited to ridership capacity. But where's the cut off? Metro says it should be 50K. I think that's a good number but it is not enforced.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 28, 2007 11:09:50 GMT -8
frankly, light rail is a very uniquely North American phenomenon. why? because cities in Europe and Japan weren't dumb enough to tear down their old streetcar systems and instead expanded and converted their systems to subway lines while we were busy building freeways.
there is nothing in the definition of light rail (which is a very nebulous definition to begin with) which says that it has to be at-grade. if the cost of building subway tunnels is truly not increasing, then we should at least look into building "light rail subways."
and our light rail vehicles are a tad on the large size (depending on if you're talking about the Nippon Sharyo vehicles or the Siemens). if we're looking at three to four car trainsets, then the capacity shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 28, 2007 12:41:17 GMT -8
I wouldn't go so far as to say North American phenomenon as I would a modern American city phenomenon.
In the mid-20th century, almost all American cities made the choice to pull up their street car tracks and replace them with buses for a variety of reasons. The big American cities, specifically New York and Chicago didn't have the luxury of relying solely on bus so they built grade separated heavy rail to replace the most heavily used lines. D.C. did the same, but theirs was aided with a freeway revolt.
San Fran kept some of their streetcars and started planning for heavy rail. In Boston, a sizable portion was already grade separated so all they just needed major upgrades, which is sort of what happened in Philadelphia as well...I stress sort of.
So today, the old American cities already have systems, and the "new" American cities, which are auto-centric/freeway-built and they all have different challenges than Los Angeles.
While we may share "newness" with Phoenix, Portland, Denver, and Houston, that's where the similarity stops. We don't have the luxury of a radial layout like Houston, where they could (if they desired) get away with a Philadelphia type system (grade separated in the core with at-grade outside the core). And we're much bigger today and will be in the future than Phoenix, Portland, Denver, San Diego, San Jose and like. We have unique challenges in Los Angeles, but all our local politicians see and hear about throughout the country are light rail projects.
And the cost of subways are increasing. But elevated and at-grade are increasing at a far greater rate. Simply, there's a lot of stuff you can get away with when there's limited to no surface disruption involved, compared to at-grade and elevated where there's significant surface disruption involved. Off the bat the possible work day is doubled to tripled.
Too much discussion of the cost of subways neglects the cause of their high costs. It's not the goods - it's the manner. The manner can be changed without much notice. The manner of constructing at-grade and elevated, is not as easily altered. You can't shut down 8 miles of a major Los Angeles thoroughfare for 12 months and 16 hours a day.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 29, 2007 5:31:49 GMT -8
Light rail is a marketing term. The forward-looking society of the 20th century ripped out trolley tracks and expected them to stay in the dustbin of history. Calling the systems trolleys or streetcars would have meant many projects would not have been built because "trolley" and "streetcar" were so backward.
Specifically, it was the San Diego solution that made light rail attractive. The new starts projects of the 1960s and 1970s were for systems what we now know as heavy rail. Our subway is one such system. This shut out most cities from getting any kind of rail, until San Diego came along with a more-or-less off-the-rack system with existing right of way, existing vehicles and designed for ridership of under 50,000 boardings.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 29, 2007 6:34:49 GMT -8
Good points wad.
And when you look at the ridership of light rail systems throughout the country you can see that these are systems that rival Gold Line ridership numbers. And at that rate I seriously question whether its worth the investment. I'd like to see a real academic debate about the economic cost of building and maintaining at-grade rail at currently now high costs (we're in the $75-100 mil/mile range now) only to get 20,000 riders a day, 15,000 of them former bus riders. (Some older systems were $25-35 mil/mile but those were largely devoid of grade separations and other now requisite safety mitigation measures.) We have several bus lines that serve 20,000 riders per day or more: what's their annual and life cycle operational cost, compared to the Gold Line?
To justify the investment a rail line has to encourage enough private vehicle modal shifts and travel times savings.
It seems the only advantage to light rail vs. rapid bus is real estate development. But heavy rail encourages more development and incentives.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 31, 2007 0:15:10 GMT -8
frankly, light rail is a very uniquely North American phenomenon. why? because cities in Europe and Japan weren't dumb enough to tear down their old streetcar systems and instead expanded and converted their systems to subway lines while we were busy building freeways. Not sure how this is a "uniquely North American phenomenon": at-grade light rail still exists throughout Europe. A great example is the German Stadtbahn, a system running in several German cities, much of which still runs at-grade. I've seen them in Helsinki and Amsterdam as well.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 31, 2007 0:17:11 GMT -8
While I was in San Francisco for Thanksgiving, I rode several Muni Metro trains, all of which run a significant part of their route at-grade, down the middle of streets. In the street-running part, passengers board at tiny platforms in the middle of the street. These very large trains twist and turn through very dense areas of the city - past schools, churches, residences, and commercial districts.
Trains are a fact of life in San Francisco. People in that city are used to the idea of trains and train safety. They are well aware that, per capita, cars are far more deadly than trains.
Light-rail trains run at-grade through some very wealthy areas of San Francisco. A line running through your neighborhood is considered to be a great asset, not a burden or an example of the city hating their children.
People in San Francisco are also well aware of the relative merits and costs of subway vs. at-grade rail. They have just completed a new at-grade line. That city decided that having an at-grade light-rail expansion now was more important than holding out for a subway sometime in the distant future.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 31, 2007 4:55:47 GMT -8
What part of the Muni has stations spaced every mile with 55 mph running between them? When going from Berkeley to the San Francisco Civic Center (almost as long as Downtown Santa Monica to 7th Street Metro Center), people don't hop on a Muni train traveling 55 mph at-grade through residential areas parallel to vehicular traffic going 35-45 mph. They get on BART. Confusing Muni with what we're building in LA is like confusing the Grove's trolley with the Blue Line.
Additionally, most of Muni that remained after bus service became the primary mode of transit was kept specifically because there were grade separated portions (i.e. SPEED & TRAVEL TIME). Indeed in the early 80s a significant portion of Muni was put in a tunnel around the same time other municipalities were building their subways.
The historic F Market street car only began operation in 1995. And The Embarcadero extension (2001) and 3rd Street Muni - T - (which opened this year, is the only line that is fully at-grade, and at $650 million for 5 miles it wasn't cheap at all) are far more about development mitigation than a transportation solution.
And by the way, while the Blue Line has more accidents per mile, MUNI still had loads of accidents. But they have a fraction of the number of fatalities in part because they're not running 3-car 225-ton trains at 35-55 mph for most of their routes.
So if we're looking for a system with stations every quarter-mile and 1-car or 0.5-car trains going 20 mph, the T and F Market MUNI might be worth taking a look. But that ain't what we're building and it's not what LA needs to get moving.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 31, 2007 9:58:26 GMT -8
What part of the Muni has stations spaced every mile with 55 mph running between them? See my comment at the end! Confusing Muni with what we're building in LA is like confusing the Grove's trolley with the Blue Line. Let's see, who's confused? I'm not the one confusing the dense pedestrian traffic of Market Street (where a subway is justified) with comparatively suburban Jefferson Park! Additionally, most of Muni that remained after bus service became the primary mode of transit was kept specifically because there were grade separated portions (i.e. SPEED & TRAVEL TIME). Other than the Twin Peaks and Sunset tunnels, the vast majority of the system at the time was street-running, at-grade. Even now, with the addition of the Market Street Subway, the majority of every Muni line - the F, J, K, L, M, N, S and T - runs at-grade. Indeed in the early 80s a significant portion of Muni was put in a tunnel around the same time other municipalities were building their subways. The Twin Peaks and Sunset tunnels already existed, so did not require the expense of construction. The Market Street Muni tunnel was built in coordination construction of BART's tunnel. This was a high-value project through the most dense part of the city. Therefore, the high cost was justifable. The historic F Market street car only began operation in 1995. And The Embarcadero extension (2001) and 3rd Street Muni - T - (which opened this year, is the only line that is fully at-grade, and at $650 million for 5 miles it wasn't cheap at all) are far more about development mitigation than a transportation solution. Not sure how this is relevant. And by the way, while the Blue Line has more accidents per mile, MUNI still had loads of accidents. But they have a fraction of the number of fatalities in part because they're not running 3-car 225-ton trains at 35-55 mph for most of their routes. To paraphrase you from an earlier post, a 20-mph train will kill you just as dead as a 55-mph train! ;D
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 31, 2007 16:11:33 GMT -8
frankly, light rail is a very uniquely North American phenomenon. why? because cities in Europe and Japan weren't dumb enough to tear down their old streetcar systems and instead expanded and converted their systems to subway lines while we were busy building freeways. Not sure how this is a "uniquely North American phenomenon": at-grade light rail still exists throughout Europe. A great example is the German Stadtbahn, a system running in several German cities, much of which still runs at-grade. I've seen them in Helsinki and Amsterdam as well. well, maybe I generalized a bit too much, but I think my point still holds. we invented the term "light rail" partially to hide the fact that we were too embarrased to admit that, after twenty years of tearing down streetcar lines, we actually needed them.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 31, 2007 16:11:51 GMT -8
And yet the Historic F Market street line operates at-grade. Ever actually check the percentage? Perhaps you missed the point: the tunnels were a big part those lines were maintained. Most others were replaced with bus/trolley bus. And you still haven't answered a question I asked you a while back: just what calculation are you using to determine whether the cost of a grade separation is justifiable? Are you actually using one of the numerous equations that exist - that I've pointed to numerous times or are you calculating using a Stephen Colbert-like estimation of " feels too expensive/ feels worth the investment" From wad just above: Surely you realize the breaking distance for a 15-ton train is significantly shorter than a 225-ton train, and a route that is 50% 55 mph and 50% 35 mph running present a greater risk than a line that is primarily running at 25 mph. Couldn't find a part of MUNI runs 55 mph at-grade through residential communities with parallel vehicular traffic traveling at 35-45 mph could you?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 7, 2008 10:00:55 GMT -8
Surely you realize the breaking distance for a 15-ton train is significantly shorter than a 225-ton train, and a route that is 50% 55 mph and 50% 35 mph running present a greater risk than a line that is primarily running at 25 mph. Yes. This was the argument I made several months ago. Couldn't find a part of MUNI runs 55 mph at-grade through residential communities with parallel vehicular traffic traveling at 35-45 mph could you? Where did I claim that Muni runs at 55 mph at-grade? Why do you insist on me defending claims I have never made? Look, our pissing match here is blurring our real disagreement here about the appropriate threshold for grade separation. We all agree that rail should be grade-separated if it provides sufficiently lower risk/higher benefit to justify the cost. Our difference is on how we determine whether the costs are justified. You seem to be saying that we should not be building rail in Los Angeles that runs at-grade over 15 mph because it is too dangerous. Is that your assertion? I don't want to be putting words into your mouth. My perspective is that grade-separation is not necessary in places where the amount of daily cross-traffic is as low as it is at the Farmdale crossing. However, I do think that the Crenshaw crossing should have been grade-separated. Same with the Vermont Avenue crossing. Those streets have very high levels of pedestrian and automobile traffic throughout the day. If money grew on trees, I would say we should grade-separate all of our rail. I'd love to see a huge, grade-separated grid of rail stretching across Los Angeles, just like your fantasy map shows. In the real world, money doesn't grow on trees. Expo isn't the only line looking for funding. The Purple Line and Downtown Connector are critical, and due to their density must be grade-separated. Crenshaw, Vermont, Lincoln, Florence, and the 405 corridor are essential pieces of the grid as well. These lines will never get built if we insist on grade-separating them all.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 7, 2008 22:59:20 GMT -8
Where did I claim that Muni runs at 55 mph at-grade? Why do you insist on me defending claims I have never made? If it doesn't why do you continue to point to the other system as though it is analogous to those in question here? What would you say to a person selling a house by LAX who said the disruption was similar to those experienced by people who live near Van Nuys airport? They're not analogous. And people who attempt to make them seem even remotely the same after the stark differences have been pointed out are being intellectually dishonest. In the case of Expo and MTA, they're just straight lying simply and solely to downplay or distract from the proven problems with the design of this line. Really there's science and then there's feelings. I've presented the science - the evaluations, the formulas, the conditions/factors that the state and federal experts say should be considered. I've convincingly shown how the MTA policy, which you are more aligned with and I and most others rail safety experts strongly disagree with, is comparatively inadequate and deficient. Both the MTA policy and the others were composed to address problems. In the case of the MTA, the problem is money or more specifically political considerations. In the case of the others, people dying, traffic circulation and community cohesion. So we're clear: As a general rule, any train this heavy operating at these speeds through the middle of LA's urban area with this type of frequency crossing streets with this much and type of vehicular AND PEDESTRIAN traffic should be built grade separated. Specifically, upon my extensive evaluation of this line and these crossings designs it's hard to justify any of the at-grade crossings. Specifically, upon my understanding of this line in the regional rail/transportation context grade separation should be a no-brainer. Specifically, upon the stated Metro Transit Service Policy, this line should be 100% grade separated. I'll take your limited endorsement. Would you like a yard sign? And that's the real issue here, isn't it? Point is, we wouldn't NOT build rail; we'd just build shorter but better rail. Indeed, those type of all-or-nothing statements ("if we grade separated nothing would ever get built") are a major component of the horrid public relations tactics MTA uses that create the type of adversarial relationship with communities that contribute to it's poor reputation. In the case of Expo, we'd either find more money, or we'd build 5 or 6 miles instead of 8. And it would be a better product, the speed increase would allow the shortened line to serve the same or more riders, but serve far more riders in the long-term when the project is completed. It would cost less over the life of the project, would be better for the region and communities that it passes through, and would actually do what major transportation projects in large metropolitan areas are supposed to do. By the way, if the methane issue was such a problem, why didn't we just elevate the Purple Line from Wilshire/Western and run it down the middle of Wilshire Blvd through Hancock Park and Beverly Hills? A nice big el down the middle of Wilshire. It would be done by probably 2004, and would have cost far less than subway. My point: It's insulting to people's intelligence to claim that this MTA decision or even most MTA decisions are made on an objective basis that are limited to cost justification and vehicle counts per lane per hour.
|
|