|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 27, 2008 12:19:57 GMT -8
update for the draft LRP 2008 Sorry...I felt this Transportation Plan should be under its own thread and not specifically related to the "Burbank Airport" thread. Anyways....wtf? 2025 until Crenshaw Corridor? Is this assuming that we get to a 33% farebox recovery and no congestion charging/tolls? No sales tax increase? Maybe this is a 'scare' tactic for the transit public that we need additional sources of funding to move faster. I hope to see this plan get appropriately updated if congestion charging & a new sales tax are implemented over the next 2 years!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 27, 2008 13:54:22 GMT -8
The LRTP definitely needs its own thread, but just so that everyone is clear this is NOT the LRTP. This is a draft memo that has already been redacted. But whenever the LRTP is uploaded for review someone should post it in this topic.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 28, 2008 16:38:17 GMT -8
in my defense someone asked for information about the LRTP in that thread. which is why i posted the draft there.
and specifically called it such.
on a side note, does anyone have any email contacts with anyone of importance at metro. other then comments@metro? specifically for the SGV service sector?
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Jan 28, 2008 17:50:58 GMT -8
I thought Eastside opens in late 2009..... ?..... There hasn't been many construction delays. Maybe the rain???
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 28, 2008 18:53:04 GMT -8
I thought Eastside opens in late 2009..... ?..... There hasn't been many construction delays. Maybe the rain??? It's been mentioned somewhere here that the bridge widening on 1st street is behind schedule.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 29, 2008 4:34:46 GMT -8
The bridge widening is independent of the opening of the Gold Line. It just needed to let the DMJM Harris people start constructing track by the end of the month, this milestone has been passed so the Gold Line should be fine. After looking over the document the asterisk says fiscal year 2010 which is consistent with Bart saying that even if the EGL finishes ahead of schedule, which it looks like it might, it wont open until Metro does its biannual service changes in the summer 2009 aka start of fiscal year 2010.
As for the bridge, since its behind schedule they decided it was best to shut it down for a month so that the future work on it doesn't delay the EGL construction or interfere with the line when system testing starts in October
|
|
|
Post by BRinSM on Jan 29, 2008 10:43:30 GMT -8
Regarding the LRTP, is there a reason that the 405 corridor isn't receiving more attention than a busway. Not that a busway on the 405 would be a bad idea, it just seem nearly impossible now with the carpool lanes being put in. Would be a viaduct like the 110?
Anyways, I guess I'm surprised that a potential rail line isn't mentioned. Obviously money is an issue, but shouldn't the idea atleast be discussed? As we all know, thousands upon thousands of people squeeze onto the 405 from all parts of the valley to come down to the Westside every morning. It only makes sense to offer transportation alternatives to these commuters.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 29, 2008 12:06:41 GMT -8
The demand is certainly there, but unfortunately there's no ROW that runs along the 405 or even parallels the 405. Without that needed space for rail or busway, such a line would have to be elevated or subway. Both very expensive. Metro has studied some alternatives, including a Green line extension up Sepulveda, but hasn't matured to the planning stages.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 16, 2008 16:54:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 25, 2008 16:12:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 25, 2008 17:26:49 GMT -8
Crenshaw by 2025 assuming that it's rail and not BRT. Expo to Santa Monica by 2016. That's about 8-10 years later for Crenshaw than I was hoping and about right for Expo although I was hoping for a more aggressive timeframe. We've built more lines over the last 18 years than we evidently plan on building over the next 25.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 25, 2008 17:44:18 GMT -8
Is the plan assuming that we will have no new increases in cash flow?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 25, 2008 19:17:52 GMT -8
So, if I understand what the draft says, those of us who want a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment in addition to the Wilshire Blvd. alignment have 45 days to lobby.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 25, 2008 21:29:59 GMT -8
Lobby away and don't sweat it. That the amount of local, state and federal cash/funding flows to transportation are running out is no surprise to anyone who can add. Hence we're seeing a growing bipartisan push to enhance and expand and create new ways to augment our transportation cash flow (differing ideas on how much to spend, but just about everyone is saying more).
All this report is saying is that we need to find new ways to fund these new projects because we don't have enough to build them based on the funding formulae based 20+ years ago. No one is saying they'll never be built--it just means that the voters/taxpayers have a big choice to make.
Traffic is such that I think we'll see the right choice made by these voters/taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 26, 2008 11:14:45 GMT -8
i certainly hope Kenalpern is right about the voters. but sadly i dont think traffic is bad enough to convince 66%
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 26, 2008 11:23:01 GMT -8
^^It was enough to convince voters more than 20 years ago, and that was when we had no extensive carpool lanes or rapid buses. Traffic is much much worse now, and I can see this passing with a breeze.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 26, 2008 12:41:50 GMT -8
sorry ive only been here 3-4. what passed 20 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 26, 2008 14:32:56 GMT -8
28 years ago voters approved Prop A, from which came the three lines we had in operation in the 1990s plus design for the Pasadena Gold Line which was then supposed to be a Blue Line extension. 18 years ago voters approved Prop C from which the money for Gold Line, Eastside Gold Line (formerly headed toward Eastside Red Line), Expo (funded for a Mid-City Red Line Extension), and the Orange Line (supposed to be a Red Line extension to Warner Center). The next recipients of Prop C funding are Expo Phase II and Crenshaw. The rest of these monies are programmed into operations costs.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 26, 2008 17:46:14 GMT -8
i certainly hope Kenalpern is right about the voters. but sadly i dont think traffic is bad enough to convince 66% 55% is doable if they can get the threshold for transportation taxes to this level which some are trying to do. However, I don't think 66.6% will pass. People think the MTA has wasted some of its past money by not connecting the Green Line to LAX and not building the best designed system to date. Unless someone lives where rail transit would make a huge difference (like I do on the Westside just off Wilshire) then there is little reason for them to personally vote for it. People have the right to question why the feds don't fund more like they do for highways.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 27, 2008 12:20:07 GMT -8
sorry old file
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 9, 2008 18:16:29 GMT -8
I posted this on another message board This was included in the board document and I think this is the most important piece of it. Per METRO LRTP Strategy. The public comment portion of the LRTP is due in a few weeks and that will last for 45 days.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Mar 9, 2008 23:05:21 GMT -8
Small correction Jerard: the Gold Line extension to Azusa is past the draft EIR stage. The Gold Line Construction Authority approved it on Feb 28th of LAST YEAR...and Metro still doesn't have it on their priorities list.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 9, 2008 23:35:29 GMT -8
Small correction Jerard: the Gold Line extension to Azusa is past the draft EIR stage. The Gold Line Construction Authority approved it on Feb 28th of LAST YEAR...and Metro still doesn't have it on their priorities list. Thanks for the correction, but given that Metro hasn't adopted it in it's LRTP even for a small extension to Azusa/Citrus College and the extension to Ontario Airport can open a new set of things if a Metrolink extension off of the San Bernandino Line is suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 12, 2008 9:44:52 GMT -8
I've just looked at the draft plan and the City of West Hollywood and Santa Monica Blvd. isn't mentioned anywhere.
It's quite ballsy for the MTA to then have its scoping meeting for the Westside at Plummer Park in West Hollywood on Santa Monica Blvd.
In the early Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project, the City of West Hollywood was left out of the scoping meetings. I find it ironic that they'd choose to have their one Westside scoping session for the Draft Long Range Transportation Plan in the City of West Hollywood along Santa Monica Blvd.
If the MTA is planning to pat Santa Monica Blvd. alignment supporters on the head, thank them for participating, and then send them on their merry way so they can get back to their original plan of one alignment, Wilshire Blvd. only, then I guess in some perverse way they get points for the willingness to do it in person, face to face. But, I expect there will be many people attending that event to demonstrate support for SMB not being left out.
Here's the letter I immediate sent to the MTA:
I realize that the Alternatives Analysis is still underway for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension study, but as the map shows a Wilshire Blvd. alignment ONLY, it's not a mystery where they appear to be leaning.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Mar 12, 2008 16:03:41 GMT -8
Unless they consider West Hollywood, no input meetings in the Westside area. Closest ones are Van Nuys, Carson, or WeHo. No love once again!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 12, 2008 20:40:21 GMT -8
Unless they consider West Hollywood, no input meetings in the Westside area. Closest ones are Van Nuys, Carson, or WeHo. No love once again! They do consider West Hollywood the Westside meeting. West Hollywood is a member of the Westside Council of Governments. There has to be a political reason why West Hollywood was chosen, as opposed to some spot in the Wilshire Corridor.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Mar 13, 2008 8:05:12 GMT -8
There has to be a political reason why West Hollywood was chosen, as opposed to some spot in the Wilshire Corridor. Or Culver City or Westwood or some place more in the center. Actually someone told me yesterday that the "border" is the LA river, yet I thought the river goes along the 5. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 13, 2008 9:09:25 GMT -8
Unless they consider West Hollywood, no input meetings in the Westside area. Closest ones are Van Nuys, Carson, or WeHo. No love once again! They do consider West Hollywood the Westside meeting. West Hollywood is a member of the Westside Council of Governments. There has to be a political reason why West Hollywood was chosen, as opposed to some spot in the Wilshire Corridor. Or how about a practical reason such as a space at LACMA or Culver City was too expensive or not enough room to hold the many people they need to work on it or Westwood was too far to the west to serve the number of people to work on it.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 13, 2008 9:14:30 GMT -8
Strategic Unfunded Projects
Tier 1: Currently Under Planning or Environmentally Cleared/Route Refinement Study
-Regional Connector -Metro Subway Westside Extension to La Cienega -Harbor Subdivision Alternate Rail Technology between LA Union Station and Metro Green Line Aviation Station -Metro Subway Westside Extension to City of Santa Monica -Burbank/Glendale Light Rail from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station -Metro Gold Line Eastside Extenstion from Atlantic/Pomona Station to City of Whittier -Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Azusa -Metro Gold Line Extension from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Montclair (looks like a repeat of above, doesn't it?) -Metro Green Line Extension from Redondo Beach Station to South Bay Galleria -Metro Green Line Extension between Norwalk Station and Norwalk Metrolink Station -Mero Green Line Extension to LAX (Not ranked) -West Santa Ana Branch ROW Corridor Maglev between LA Union Station and Santa Ana Metrolink Station (Capital and operating to funded by others)
Tier 2
-Metro Red Line Extension from North Hollywood Station to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station -Vermont Corridor Subway -"Yellow" Line Light Rail between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Regional Connector -I-405 Corridor Busway between Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station and Metro Green Line Aviation Station -"Silver" Line Light Rail between Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station and City of La Puente -Metro Green Line Extension from LAX to Expo Santa Monica Station -SR-134 Transit Corridor Bus Rapid Transit between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station -Metro Green Line Extension between South Bay Galleria and Pacific Coast Hwy Harbor Transitway Station [/size]
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 15, 2008 17:21:15 GMT -8
The confusing part of that LRTP map is in the San Fernando Valley, you'd think that Canoga Av, Reseda Bl, Sepulveda Bl, Van Nuys Bl, and Lankershim Bl/San Fernando Rd are getting rail lines, but other than Canoga, the rest are corridor bus speed improvements (which also correlates to the north/south streets in the SFV which have Metro Rapid service, in which Lankershim/San Fernando will get one this June). The rest of the funded transit projects outside the SFV are going to be real or potential (in terms of Crenshaw) rail projects. Besides, the SFV got bus for our ROW in the form of the Orange Line. Strategic Unfunded Projects
Tier 1: Currently Under Planning or Environmentally Cleared/Route Refinement Study
-Regional Connector -Metro Subway Westside Extension to La Cienega -Harbor Subdivision Alternate Rail Technology between LA Union Station and Metro Green Line Aviation Station -Metro Subway Westside Extension to City of Santa Monica -Burbank/Glendale Light Rail from LA Union Station to Burbank Metrolink Station -Metro Gold Line Eastside Extenstion from Atlantic/Pomona Station to City of Whittier -Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Azusa -Metro Gold Line Extension from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Montclair (looks like a repeat of above, doesn't it?) -Metro Green Line Extension from Redondo Beach Station to South Bay Galleria -Metro Green Line Extension between Norwalk Station and Norwalk Metrolink Station -Mero Green Line Extension to LAX (Not ranked) -West Santa Ana Branch ROW Corridor Maglev between LA Union Station and Santa Ana Metrolink Station (Capital and operating to funded by others)
Tier 2
-Metro Red Line Extension from North Hollywood Station to Burbank Airport Metrolink Station -Vermont Corridor Subway -"Yellow" Line Light Rail between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Regional Connector -I-405 Corridor Busway between Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station and Metro Green Line Aviation Station -"Silver" Line Light Rail between Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station and City of La Puente -Metro Green Line Extension from LAX to Expo Santa Monica Station -SR-134 Transit Corridor Bus Rapid Transit between Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station and Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station -Metro Green Line Extension between South Bay Galleria and Pacific Coast Hwy Harbor Transitway Station [/size][/quote]
|
|