|
Post by darrell on Dec 5, 2009 15:49:02 GMT -8
The newly-adopted LRTP programs $1,715M for the Crenshaw corridor. The Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR costs the base LRT plus options 1-4 at $1,606M. Option 5, the second subway station at Vernon, is $155M. Option 6, below ground from 39th to Expo (about 0.6 mile with one subway station), is $236M. Together those add up to $2,065M, year of expenditure, $350M over budget. The 1.0 miles from 48th to 59th, with a subway station at Slauson, should cost at least as much additional as the $236M farther north, for a total of at least $2.3 billion, or $600M over budget. One could expect Metro staff to report back with a refined cost estimate and the reality that there is no source of funding to cover such a huge gap. Like the Santa Monica City Council about the Expo maintenance yard, Board members can say they've made their best effort to study it, per the quote below, but the project must get to Expo with the available funding. There may be cost, constructability, safety, environmental and economic development benefits to Metro and to the residents of LA County that can be reached by a below grade connection at this location.
The intent of this amendment to the Locally Preferred Alternative is to have staff perform further study of the cost, constructability, safety, environmental and economic development benefits associated with a below grade rail connection between 48th and 59th streets on Crenshaw Boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 5, 2009 16:13:09 GMT -8
And not to mention that there is something called Metro grade-crossing policy for light-rail transit and it must be followed to be fair to various neighborhoods and limit the cost of light-rail construction.
Measure R funds for Crenshaw are limited and with state funds almost eliminated and federal funds unlikely, there is not even an opportunity to cause "environmental injustice" to other neighborhoods in LA by building a Crenshaw LRT subway.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 5, 2009 16:50:16 GMT -8
I liken the Metro board to a huge juggernaut machine rumbling slowly forward. Individual board members are pushing as hard as they can in one direction or another, but the net effect of all that pushing is to only keep it rumbling forward on about the same path.
Mark Ridley-Thomas worked very hard to craft the LRTP compromise that provided $1.7B to Crenshaw and showed himself a skilled deal-maker. But where would he find another $600M+ for Crenshaw, let alone the support to transfer it to his project?
Gloria Molina, still angry she didn't get a full subway in East L.A., would support one on Crenshaw? Mike Antonovich, who got his at-grade Foothill Gold Line in the LRTP deal and doesn't support any subways? Zev Yaroslavsky and Mayor Villaraigosa who won't give anything from the Wilshire subway? Gateway Cities that already feels shortchanged?
Unless the engineers find magic in the cost of tunnel boring machines, I don't see it. Not to mention that this same money could be more effectively applied to heading north from Expo toward Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 5, 2009 21:50:45 GMT -8
Unless the engineers find magic in the cost of tunnel boring machines, I don't see it. Not to mention that this same money could be more effectively applied to heading north from Expo toward Wilshire. Tunnel boring is not even the bulk of the cost for a subway but subway stations are. Subway stations, as any large building, are very expensive and take years to build. I can't agree more that any more funds should go to extending it toward Wilshire and West Hollywood. What the region really needs is a comprehensive rail network and, in order to achieve that, cost-effectiveness is needed. Spending all your funds on a line or two is not the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 6, 2009 22:19:54 GMT -8
While I certainly don't agree with any specific CONCLUSION of how this should be done, subway or surface on that segment, I do agree that the EXPLORATION and the rough ESTIMATION of the full subway project is reasonable at this early phase.
Ultimately, this is a matter of political will. Darrell is right...but our current venue is NOT like we saw in the 1980's when folks were coming up with poorly-thought-out Westside and Eastside subways that were swerving all over the place. We pretty much know where this is going to go, and that we want lots of riders between the Wilshire, Expo and Green Lines (and LAX).
While I very much believe that we SHOULD bring up the critical point that every $$$ spent on Crenshaw is $$$ not present to spend on the Downtown Connector and Wilshire Subways, I have yet to hear L.A. County voter sentiment decrying the funding of these projects as too much or frivolous.
Whether it's widening the I-405 and I-5 freeways, improving the rest of the freeway system and grade separations for Metrolink/commercial freight trains, and these VERY DEFINED RAIL PROJECTS (unlike the 1980's), we're not at the point where this all appears out of control with poor planning and consensus-building.
So what's my point? My point is that I do favor letting the facts out for all to see and digest, to debate and possibly approve or disapprove. At this immediate time, the sentiment from the voters might just be that the state and the feds need to stop spending money on other priorities (which at this time ARE perceived as wasted money, such as public employee pensions, foreign wars, prison guard salaries, etc.) and more on transportation.
Remember: at this time, probably the only undisputed, virtually-universally favored part of the recent federal stimulus package is that of transportation/infrastructure.
So...the complete subway might be considered financially foolish...and it might not...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 7, 2009 10:32:26 GMT -8
I agree with Ken: Mark Ridley-Thomas' request for studying the costs and benefits of an underground option is reasonable. It may not ultimately have any chance of becoming reality. But it certainly deserves consideration. It's important to ask for the system you want, especially at this stage of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Dec 7, 2009 13:34:06 GMT -8
It's important to ask for the system you want, especially at this stage of the game. I certainly agree with this. You may as well start by asking for what you want. I don't find the "Obama-esqe" school of negotiation (a.k.a. "giving away the store to your opponents before negotiations even start) to be particularly successful or helpful.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 12, 2009 9:07:16 GMT -8
Not sure how we all missed this: the Board selected light-rail as the preferred alternative for Crenshaw. The project now moves into the FEIR stage. I have created a new FEIR thread.
|
|