|
Post by ieko on Oct 1, 2009 10:28:23 GMT -8
I don't think elminating the Redondo Beach to Norwalk line is a very good idea at all.. During rush hour there are a lot of areospace workers heading east.
Also once the Green Line gets to the South Bay Galleria & the new Torrance Transit center I'm sure ridership will increase thanks to improved connections to the regions bus service.
I doubt this would hurt the Green Line that much, since the Green Line is fully grade seperated running trains frequently isn't going to be that much of an issue. I see this as a forced increase in headways because now late at night you'll like see a train every 10-15 minutes instead of every 20 from Norwalk to Aviation and Redondo Beach to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 1, 2009 11:40:47 GMT -8
One of the most interesting (and welcome) aspects of the LRT option that wasn't clear before (to me, anyway) is they are looking at extending the current Green Line north from Aviation station to the Century Blvd station (where the LAX people mover will interface) creating two Green line routes from Norwalk: Norwalk to Redondo and Norwalk to Century Blvd. The Crenshaw line would continue from Century Blvd (bypassing Aviation station as I recall) and continuing south to Redondo. Here's a repost (from page 8) of the proposed Crenshaw Corridor operating plan:
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 1, 2009 14:38:59 GMT -8
I don't think elminating the Redondo Beach to Norwalk line is a very good idea at all.. During rush hour there are a lot of areospace workers heading east. Also once the Green Line gets to the South Bay Galleria & the new Torrance Transit center I'm sure ridership will increase thanks to improved connections to the regions bus service. I doubt this would hurt the Green Line that much, since the Green Line is fully grade seperated running trains frequently isn't going to be that much of an issue. I see this as a forced increase in headways because now late at night you'll like see a train every 10-15 minutes instead of every 20 from Norwalk to Aviation and Redondo Beach to LAX. This might be highly inefficient because you would have twice the service at the freeway Green Line stations than you would at the LAX station. Sure you can spend money and reduce headway time, but you may just be spending that extra money to mostly double serve already somewhat sparse station ridership when really the busiest station needs to be served most of all. I'm all for increasing train frequency, but that same argument works for creating a true north-south line and a Green Line that is a true east-west line and doesn't branch. Increased train frequency would make anyone transfering between the Green and Crenshaw lines have a reduced wait and faster travel times as well so that argument doesn't really hold weight with me. Also, I wonder once Expo opens in earnest in 2015 or so and is successful, how much of a problem the shared tracks with the Blue Line will be with 100,000 rider lines trying to use them at the same time. I have a feeling this is going to be viewed as quite a problem or at least quite a nuisance by Metro Operations and there will be little enthusiasm to repeat this in other parts of the system where not necessary. At a minumum the shared tracks are going to limit how much headway time can be reduced, why would we want the same problem on the Green Line which is grade separated.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 1, 2009 22:17:04 GMT -8
No, you would have the same amount of service because there are two lines on each segment. For LAX the North/South Crenshaw Line and the terminus for branch B of the Green Line. The benefit here is that there are no forced transfer for those who use the Green Line as it is today because this line will still exist, but riders between Aviation and Norwalk as well as the South Bay and Mariposa will also enjoy increased service.
Anyway this debate seems sort of silly since it's clear that Metro intends to have a Green Line Spur route as illustrated in Justin's post.
You can't really recreate the same problem that the Expo/Blue line will have because the Green Line is entirely grade seperated and not nearly as popular. Remember, the Green Line only runs two car trains right now so there is a lot of room for capacity expansion.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 2, 2009 12:41:56 GMT -8
No, you would have the same amount of service because there are two lines on each segment. For LAX the North/South Crenshaw Line and the terminus for branch B of the Green Line. The benefit here is that there are no forced transfer for those who use the Green Line as it is today because this line will still exist, but riders between Aviation and Norwalk as well as the South Bay and Mariposa will also enjoy increased service. Anyway this debate seems sort of silly since it's clear that Metro intends to have a Green Line Spur route as illustrated in Justin's post. You can't really recreate the same problem that the Expo/Blue line will have because the Green Line is entirely grade seperated and not nearly as popular. Remember, the Green Line only runs two car trains right now so there is a lot of room for capacity expansion. I don't want to belabor the point here, but there are a couple points to note. Just because Metro has it on a map now does not mean this is set in stone by any means. We are looking at both Crenshaw and the Green Line extension both being completed about a decade away. Metro could easily change their plan here as conditions and studies warrant. They could even change this after the lines are built. Just because the Green Line is grade separated does not mean there won't be issues with running Green Line trains on the same track as the Crenshaw trains for these South Bay stations. Crenshaw will be a partial street running line so its trains cannot be timed. There could be a limit to how much frequency you can run on these two lines because of the shared track or trains may have to wait a minute or so in a station every once in a while to let the other line go through first and make its stop and continue on. This is especially true if you are running short headways. Lastly, the point about LAX not getting the same service when you branch the Green Line is true. Lets say the Green Line has a 8 minute headway. Half the trains go to the South Bay and half to LAX. That means the LAX station gets a Green Line train every 16 minutes. If there is no branching, then of course the LAX station would get a train every 8 minutes. You are mixing apples and oranges here when you say that it will have the same service because LAX will now have Crenshaw trains going north-south. That is going to be the case either way if you branch the Green Line or not. Overall, it is a trade off that needs to be weighed as branching has some negative consequences along with some benefits. Do the 2 South Bay stations really have more ridership than a proposed LAX station? I believe the answer is a resounding no as the current Aviation/LAX station is the busiest Green Line station and an actual LAX station with access to a people mover directly to the terminals will have much higher ridership, especially considering that a lot of LAX's giant workforce live along the current Blue and Green lines. I'm not sure what the two South Bay stations do in terms of ridership, but the last one always seems to have few passengers when I drive by and it is noted for its access to a minature golf course although a Northrop Grumman building is across the street. Some South Bay residents as I noted use these stations to park and ride - mostly to Downtown LA, but they will now be likely more inclined to simply use the Crenshaw Line to Expo to do this, which further negates the argument for Green Line branching. Overall, I think we want to give the major destination of both the Green and Crenshaw lines as much service as possible so I believe this needs to be carefully studied.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 3, 2009 6:18:27 GMT -8
Sounds like the best way to avoid this problem is to avoid the street-running portions of the Crenshaw Line and reduce the at-grade crossings on the Harbor Subdivision down to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 3, 2009 6:21:04 GMT -8
Oh and anyone else scratching their head about the $325 million 0.7-mile cut-and-cover tunnel at LAX?
Two points:
1) At that cost it's cheaper to bore a tunnel there. 2) Why is trench inadequate?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 4, 2009 11:49:18 GMT -8
I also believe that further studies are needed, but the opportunity for Downtown, Mid-City, southeast L.A. County and South Bay riders to access LAX via Century/Aviation will now occur. All other studies as to how riders will use the future Green and Crenshaw Lines will be forthcoming, and no one can really know what the world will be like a decade away.
As is stands, it's my guess (which is as good or as lousy as any, despite my interest in this for years), that we will see a north-south Crenshaw Line from Expo/Wilshire to the South Bay, and an east-west Green Line from the Westside (perhaps Sepulveda/Lincoln, perhaps Lincoln Blvd.) to Norwalk...and with a big "X" where the two lines intersect east of LAX together with two shared stations for at Aviation/Imperial and Century/Aviation.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 4, 2009 18:00:39 GMT -8
The decision before the Metro board about Crenshaw is essentially LRT or BRT, and with what options. At this point neither is a strong choice.
LRT's funding is limited by Measure R to $1,207M. It is not competitive for federal New Starts funding, let alone that the Metro board just voted to submit Wilshire and the Regional Connector. Perhaps it can get some state funding, but we know the state of the state these days.
Those of us who support LRT hope to see it as the first phase of a larger north-south corridor to Wilshire and Hollywood, but that extension is far off, probably beyond the 30-year span of Measure R.
Conversely, a project that costs more than $1,207M would be truely useless, with not even enough money to connect to Expo.
That likely rules out the two most-expensive options, a second subway station at Vernon and a subway station at Expo. The Purple Line is sparing with its subway stations: Crenshaw can be too, with only one for Liemert Park-MLK. Expo can be an interim at-grade station.
BRT would go all the way to Wilshire, but provides little benefit over existing Rapid bus service, and would impact the Harbor Subdivision.
A lot may depend on the politics of the Metro board: does Mark Ridley-Thomas have six other votes for LRT?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 4, 2009 20:35:37 GMT -8
...and, to a large degree, this will be a political decision of what faced the Expo decision-makers a few years ago: will BRT or LRT rule the day, the year and the century for major investments.
With the overwhelming ridership of the Orange and Green and, yes, even the Gold Line to Pasadena, we're looking at some projects that (compared to other cities nationally) have great potential to be part of a HUGE network.
With the understanding that we tend to "cheap out" on rail projects while we spend whatever it takes on road projects, my $.02 is to say "to hell with BRT" and "to the hell with the calculated numbers" because it's all fantasy. So's predicting the stock market, by the way, and predicting foreign wars and even one's own children's futures.
We made the decision with Expo, and I ain't looking back. Crenshaw ought to be a LRT, and if we have to cut out the part that connects Century/Aviation with Aviation/Imperial Green Line station to do that, then so be it.
I am not interested in sacrificing future generations to save a few bucks today: a Crenshaw LRT will be a welcome addition that connects the Mid-City, LAX and the South Bay.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 5, 2009 7:58:56 GMT -8
I hate to say it but unless some grass roots movement exerts pressure, given the projected ridership, and the projected cost, the Crenshaw corridor will likely be our next BRT corridor with a vague option to upgrade to LRT in the distant future when funds and ridership allow for it.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 5, 2009 8:20:10 GMT -8
This whole exercise perfectly proved a point I've been itching to make regarding Darrell Clarke and the organization he leads. What have we seen: Despite being shown rather convincing evidence that the cost estimates are questionable (i.e., one Crenshaw LRT underground station is assumed to cost more than two underground and six at-grade LRT stations on Eastside), he ignores the criticism - says nothing about it, doesn't even attempt to defend it, and then lets a couple of days pass before he uses these questionable cost estimates to support the elimination of grade separated options. So you know Darrell, what makes people believe you're on the MTA payroll is not that you advocate for their projects, rather it's the way you do it, and there is no more perfect example than this dialogue. You're the only person NOT questioning the underground estimates. So yes, people think your on the take, and/or your love for at-grade rail is so strong you'd sell your first born for it. I'm just letting you know buddy. Incidentally, Crenshaw has $1.67B locked in locally. (Not that that would change Darrell's ultimate conclusion.) Ken, Two points: 1) Calling for the elimination of any options at this stage in preliminary engineering and with unrefined cost estimates is not wise. 2) There are a 1001 ways to fund a rail line, and even I, who people actually call on for background in rail financing options, don't know of the various pots available today, let alone between now and 2016/2018, which will include TWO federal transportation bills. From 2004-2007 Expo's budget went from $505M to $862M with more resource allocation changes than I can even keep up with. Darrell, perhaps you can offer us a good breakdown in the different Expo Phase 1 budgets from 2004 to current, so you can continue making my point, and showing that your conclusions ("there's no way to fund it, therefore must be at-grade") have absolutely no basis in reality. It's funny seeing this play out, when the moves of the actors are already well known in advance. All one has to do is check the archives, and the same people (Darrell and Co) were saying the Washington/National grade separation would KILL Expo - make it a busway. It's all quite entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 5, 2009 11:19:05 GMT -8
This whole exercise perfectly proved a point I've been itching to make regarding Darrell Clarke and the organization he leads. What have we seen: Despite being shown rather convincing evidence that the cost estimates are questionable (i.e., one Crenshaw LRT underground station is assumed to cost more than two underground and six at-grade LRT stations on Eastside), he ignores the criticism - says nothing about it, doesn't even attempt to defend it, and then lets a couple of days pass before he uses these questionable cost estimates to support the elimination of grade separated options. Readers of the last couple of pages of this discussion thread know that I posted the detailed cost breakdown data for Eastside and Crenshaw, not you, and that you haven't addressed construction cost inflation since the Eastside contract. No, it's people like you repeating a known falsehood; for what purpose? To question their estimates you need countering facts, which you've not presented here, either about Crenshaw or Expo. Source? That's not what Measure R says. But projects still need to qualify for New Starts cost-effectiveness, which Crenshaw doesn't. Primarily they moved the final Culver City station from Phase 2 to Phase 1, which will reduce the overall cost of the project. And there was more than expected construction cost inflation. No kidding, Damien! Oh, and do you support the Farmdale station before the CPUC? Really? Where did we say that?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 5, 2009 16:49:03 GMT -8
Before we start throwing e-bombs at each other again, I think it bears repeating that we all (or virtually all) want the Crenshaw Line to be LRT, not BRT. In all frankness and fairness, I'm not sure I interpreted Darrell's comments the way you did, Damien--Darrell has made it very clear he wants a LRT from LAX to the Red Line.
Whether Damien or Darrell or I agree or disagree how much of it should be grade-separated (I'd like it to be really grade-separated in anticipation of a 100,000+ ridership line) doesn't take away from the fact that we all are looking forward to a Crenshaw LRT.
Methinks the biggest problem comes from the exacting, if not ridiculous thresholds needed for federal funding--they really discriminate against urban centers like L.A. where grade separation is much more difficult than with small cities. Note that only the Downtown Connector and the Subway qualify for federal funding at this time, leaving the Expo, Foothill Gold and Crenshaw Lines to be paid for locally.
...and the Downtown Connector has to be limited, with fewer tracks and with less amenities than we'd originally wanted from it--all just to qualify it for federal funding!
This debate is probably being directed at entirely the wrong people--I suspect that Damien and Darrell and myself will always disagree on how much LRT should be grade-separated, but I think our collective ire is much better aimed at current federal rail funding policy.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 6, 2009 8:19:12 GMT -8
When it comes to Crenshaw, I think we all agree that (1) rail is better than BRT, and (2) more grade-separated is better than less grade-separated. The question is cost and feasibility. Any rational discussion of feasibility must take into account political realities.
On the one hand, there are many, many people pushing hard for this project. Mark Ridley-Thomas is notable for his ardent support of this project, and he is one of the Five Kings. On the other hand, as Ken said, the Feds have very stringent criteria for getting funds available, perhaps too stringent. The ridership numbers are showing up as being pretty low, for whatever reason, and this makes the uphill climb that much more steep.
I think some pressure has to be put on Metro staff to look at ways to improve those ridership numbers. What models are they using to project ridership? What alternatives are there for travel through the area? What will be the effect of increasing commercial density through the corridor?
And again, what can be done about the FTA's formula for cost effectiveness to remove policies that discriminate against much needed urban projects like Crenshaw?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 6, 2009 16:53:54 GMT -8
Great questions, metrocenter!
The discrimination in Washington has to be fought there, but much of the reason why we're hurting with numbers is because we never did that Downtown Connector in a timely fashion, and we don't have a network.
I'll go out on a limb and make this prediction, based on current ridership numbers on the Blue, Green, Gold and Red Lines that exceeded all predictions because they linked to each other and with bus routes that made innovative riders use them in ways even the experts never dreamed:
After the Connector gets built, which will roughly be around the time that the first segment of the Wilshire Subway and the Expo Line and Crenshaw Line to Expo and the Foothill Gold Line to Azusa is completed, there will be a 1-2 year explosion in ridership as a true network is finally created.
All the ridership predictions will be thrown away, and both the underground connection of the Crenshaw Line to the Wilshire and/or Red Lines and the next few segments of the Wilshire Subway will be wildly competitive for federal funding.
...and the Foothill Gold Line Authority will still scream about how it's not getting any federal funding because (despite better ridership after the Foothill extension to Azusa and especially the Downtown Connector) its ridership out to Claremont is still a bit too low.
Y'all can call me an idiot in 2016-7 if I'm wrong about all this.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 7, 2009 15:51:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 16, 2009 6:51:57 GMT -8
The decision before the Metro board about Crenshaw is essentially LRT or BRT, and with what options. At this point neither is a strong choice. LRT's funding is limited by Measure R to $1,207M. It is not competitive for federal New Starts funding, let alone that the Metro board just voted to submit Wilshire and the Regional Connector. Perhaps it can get some state funding, but we know the state of the state these days. Those of us who support LRT hope to see it as the first phase of a larger north-south corridor to Wilshire and Hollywood, but that extension is far off, probably beyond the 30-year span of Measure R. Conversely, a project that costs more than $1,207M would be truely useless, with not even enough money to connect to Expo. That likely rules out the two most-expensive options, a second subway station at Vernon and a subway station at Expo. The Purple Line is sparing with its subway stations: Crenshaw can be too, with only one for Liemert Park-MLK. Expo can be an interim at-grade station. BRT would go all the way to Wilshire, but provides little benefit over existing Rapid bus service, and would impact the Harbor Subdivision. A lot may depend on the politics of the Metro board: does Mark Ridley-Thomas have six other votes for LRT? It would be interesting to know how the Foothill Gold Line hijack would effect this as well. I still say this project should be rethought as a project from Wilshire to the Green Line. Hopefully then, it could qualify for New Starts funding when taking into account some Purple Line and Expo extensions as well as the DTC. Given the current funds, unless somehow Crenshaw gets a shift of money to it, it doesn't appear that there are enough funds to build the current project, especially with Measure R funds coming up short of projections.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 16, 2009 13:19:17 GMT -8
Considering that everyone's paying into the Prop. R pot, masonite, I'm not sure that a Foothill Gold Line to Azusa (but no farther!) is a "hijack" as much as it is that every region gets their fair share.
The Foothill region (and many locals in the Westside!) think that the low potential ridership of the Crenshaw Line suggests that THAT line is a hijack from the rest of the projects.
So long as ridership estimates and cost estimates make it so darned hard to get federal funding in urban areas like ours, we'll have to just go with federal funding for the subway projects and local/state funding for the light rail projects. This means, of course, that we still need to lean on Sacramento to come up with the extra funding that we can't do locally.
...and I agree that Crenshaw should be a Wilshire-Green Line route, and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 16, 2009 21:44:32 GMT -8
Considering that everyone's paying into the Prop. R pot, masonite, I'm not sure that a Foothill Gold Line to Azusa (but no farther!) is a "hijack" as much as it is that every region gets their fair share. The Foothill region (and many locals in the Westside!) think that the low potential ridership of the Crenshaw Line suggests that THAT line is a hijack from the rest of the projects. So long as ridership estimates and cost estimates make it so darned hard to get federal funding in urban areas like ours, we'll have to just go with federal funding for the subway projects and local/state funding for the light rail projects. This means, of course, that we still need to lean on Sacramento to come up with the extra funding that we can't do locally. ...and I agree that Crenshaw should be a Wilshire-Green Line route, and nothing less. Well, Measure R provided a certain level of funding for projects including the subway. By trying to reduce that amount and send it to other projects, I think it would be incorrect to call that anything other than a hijack.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 25, 2009 1:28:26 GMT -8
With Ridley-Thomas asking for more of Crenshaw to be subway, there seems to be a good chance this will be seen as a major argument. One problem is that this line was already short of Measure R funds to complete it and now we are looking at $2.1B or more. Measure R seems to provide less than 75% of that. If there is one line in the LRTP that I have doubts about being completed per its assigned timeline it would be this one. Maybe there is a way besides New Starts to get the funds for this project. There is probably a little transportation bond money left over from the 06 election, although I believe a lot of this has been used already including on Expo and there certainly wouldn't be $500M available. If federal money does become available, I would say it would be much better to look into building this right from the get go and getting it to Wilshire/Purple Line. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-westside-subway23-2009oct23,0,4711877.story
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 25, 2009 9:22:46 GMT -8
With Ridley-Thomas asking for more of Crenshaw to be subway, I interpret that as only seeking the subway options identified in the environmental process, essentially two: the narrow part of Crenshaw north of the Harbor Subdivision and the section around the station at Expo.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 25, 2009 11:48:02 GMT -8
With Ridley-Thomas asking for more of Crenshaw to be subway, I interpret that as only seeking the subway options identified in the environmental process, essentially two: the narrow part of Crenshaw north of the Harbor Subdivision and the section around the station at Expo. Agreed. This probably still means groups like Fix Expo will still try to sue to stop Crenshaw as they pretty much want the whole thing underground, and my main point was that this is a bound to be a difficult and expensive line to construct, and it doesn't have money available to construct it. No build is looking like a serious option.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 25, 2009 17:00:39 GMT -8
5 PM tomorrow (Monday) is the deadline for the DEIR comments on Crenshaw. Please go to the following page and tell them you want LRT and you don't want BRT!:metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/comment_form.htmEven though the ridership estimates are low, let's not forget that this will be part of the larger LRT network, including the LAX connection, Harbor Subdivision LRT, and future connections to Hollywood through San Vicente.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 26, 2009 14:26:48 GMT -8
Reminder, again: 1.5 hours left to get your DEIR comments in.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 27, 2009 11:15:47 GMT -8
With Ridley-Thomas asking for more of Crenshaw to be subway, I interpret that as only seeking the subway options identified in the environmental process, essentially two: the narrow part of Crenshaw north of the Harbor Subdivision and the section around the station at Expo. And you'd be wrong again, just like you were wrong about Crenshaw only having 1.27B dedicated to it. Have you gotten around to formulating one critical word against Metro about the grade separation and underground station cost assumptions Darrell? Boy am I glad we have someone who will and does pay attention to this kind of stuff - per the LRTP Motion drafted by Ridley-Thomas and adopted unanimously: The Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor budget is currently $1.715 billion. Metro has conducted an extensive outreach process. The community has identified several serious concerns regarding public safety and economic impacts. In order to mitigate these serious issues, additional funds will be required.
[....]
We, therefore, move that the Metro Board amend the 2009 LRTP as follows:
1. As a first priority, pursue other potential funding sources, excluding Federal New Starts, which are not currently included in the 2009 LRTP, to be programmed to close the funding gaps on the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor. This evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, the following possible sources:
a) New cost estimates, to reflect current construction market savings...
Regarding where the money would come from, here's the press release: The corridor project, championed by Supervisor Ridley-Thomas, will now be eligible for $485 million in potential new funding in addition to $1.7 billion previously budgeted for the line. Regarding what issues he's referencing: “We have to go underground, otherwise we’re going to end up like the Expo Line at Dorsey and Foshay,” Ridley-Thomas said, referring to safety issues that have delayed construction of the Expo Line near Dorsey High School and the Foshay Learning Center. What I don't get is why anyone would be opposed to doing this project (or any other for that matter) in a manner that addresses community concerns, saves lives, improves service and reliability and provides a product that won't be out-of-date 30 years after it's built? How could a responsible taxpayer and transit advocate not call into question the $96M underground Vernon station cost estimate, when a project less than 5 miles away from Crenshaw just built TWO underground stations and SIX at-grade stations for ~$97M (Eastside Extension). Incidentally Ken, I think you're idea of getting LAWA to pitch in the $325M is a good one and the type of thinking that is strategically helpful in ensuring that existing resources are appropriately leveraged and directed towards mass transit so that the quality of the end product is not compromised. However, I seriously question how a 0.7-mile trench or cut-and-cover tunnel on an abandoned right-of-way could cost $300M. I think folk will be hard pressed to find any cut-and-cover tunnel in the world constructed in those conditions that cost that much.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Oct 27, 2009 12:06:28 GMT -8
Here's the Fasana, Antonovich and Ridley-Thomas amendment to the LRTP
rest of amendment included Bus and Highway items not relevant to Crenshaw, Foothill or Westside Subway corridors.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 27, 2009 12:20:02 GMT -8
However, I seriously question how a 0.7-mile trench or cut-and-cover tunnel on an abandoned right-of-way could cost $300M. I think folk will be hard pressed to find any cut-and-cover tunnel in the world constructed in those conditions that cost that much. Damien, are you referring to the trench along Aviation? If so, I agree that this short trench shouldn't cost $300 million. There are no utilities under that ROW, are there? So it's just a matter of digging a trench, shoring up the walls, and possibly covering it up. $300 million for that?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 27, 2009 12:33:17 GMT -8
However, I seriously question how a 0.7-mile trench or cut-and-cover tunnel on an abandoned right-of-way could cost $300M. I think folk will be hard pressed to find any cut-and-cover tunnel in the world constructed in those conditions that cost that much. Damien, are you referring to the trench along Aviation? If so, I agree that this short trench shouldn't cost $300 million. There are no utilities under that ROW, are there? So it's just a matter of digging a trench, shoring up the walls, and possibly covering it up. $300 million for that? the $300M is out of scale, however I wonder is this has more to do with the structural strength and engineering needed to carry the Live loads of a A380 or 747 needed to make an emergency landing off the South Runway and if it clears onto Aviation. That would be about the only reason for that cost and even that is like a good $100M off. But keep in mind boring a tube wouldn't be any cheaper because you've got to dig the portal to tie this piece to the elevated structure to tie into the Green Line and it's less than a mile which is not very productive for boring under an existing right-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 27, 2009 14:39:58 GMT -8
I interpret that as only seeking the subway options identified in the environmental process, essentially two: the narrow part of Crenshaw north of the Harbor Subdivision and the section around the station at Expo. And you'd be wrong again, just like you were wrong about Crenshaw only having 1.27B dedicated to it. Despite strongly supporting the Crenshaw LRT on the right-of-way myself, the price tag for it is already over the roof and it's over the budget. Fix Expo will ask to build everything as subway, but everyone knows that money doesn't grow on trees. More economical we build these lines, more lines we can build -- as simple as that. Environmental-justice card has lost its value. Let's not forget that the Expo Line on the Westside is not a subway either. I don't agree with Ridley-Thomas on this that Fix Expo and other NIMBYs will be a problem. Especially Option 6 is ridiculously unnecessary. So is Option 5. A whole LRT line can be built for the half-billion-dollar price tag of extra undergrounding. In other parts of the county, people are dying to find money to have LRT built, like those in Claremont - Montclair. They are afraid of a few troublemakers like Fix Expo objecting to LRT?! This line should be built in the same way the Expo Line and Foothill Lines are being built: above the ground. With the savings the San Vicente extension to Hollywood could be built faster. If the only people around were NIMBYs like NFSR and Fix Expo people, nothing would be built -- ever. It's also ridiculous of Ridley-Thomas giving Fix Expo credit on Farmdale. He should have never mentioned those few NIMBYs who got lucky with the Dorsey High situation and manipulated the process by using the race card.
|
|