|
Post by erict on Sept 16, 2009 15:33:40 GMT -8
If the Gold Line which serves Downtown LA where parking is very expensive (even for employees) and has a huge job base not to mention cultural activities, transit connections including Metrolink and so forth as well as Pasadena which everyone in the SGV says is a huge destination, can only serve 20k riders, why do we think this line will have such a big ridership? Anyone have a rational answer as I've never heard one before??? BRT, as much as I hate it, would free up money for other projects like the Downtown Connector which are much more dire in need, at least in my opinion. However, I can't bring myself to endorse BRT. With light rail, our whole system gets bigger and increases overall ridership.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 16, 2009 15:35:00 GMT -8
If transit ridership models are like the models that I use, they have lots of assumptions. Two different people can use the same model and get significantly different numbers. Conservative assumptions yield conservative estimates. Aggressive assumptions lead to higher projections that might turn out to have been overly optimistic. My understanding is that Metro only needs to meet minimum qualifying ridership numbers and that there's not an advantage if those minimum numbers are significantly exceeded. OTOH cities that have listed really high numbers have seen their models rejected by the Feds. Isn't that what happened with the Foothill gold line a couple of years ago?
The ridership numbers for Crenshaw, Expo I and II, and the downtown connector all seem to be very conservative and achievable numbers. They're almost like worst case IMO. I can see each of them getting double the projected number rather easily.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 16, 2009 20:08:14 GMT -8
this is just a gut feeling, but it seems like to me that the Crenshaw Line is one of those rail lines where ridership is highly dependant on where you put the end points. I've read here that Crenshaw team was opposed to an Expo downtown shared track but I'm curious how much the ridership projections would rise if a one seat ride from LAX to downtown via expo/blue was offered. I bet the ridership numbers would go up a lot. I guess the Flower street headway's would be the biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 16, 2009 21:02:22 GMT -8
I really have to agree with your comments, guys: I can't buy this as a BRT, but I do wish this were placed behind the Downtown Connector. Still, this is its own Regional Connector and will be like the Expo and Pasadena Gold Lines in that by itself it's a nice project...but add the right terminal destinations and it really becomes a great project.
The Expo Line and the Pasadena Gold Line have their flaws, but will probably be even better with the Downtown Connector. A Crenshaw Line from the Green to Expo Line will have its flaws, but connect it to the Purple Line (dare I say Red Line?) and the South Bay Galleria in future extensions and it, too, will be dramatically better.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 16, 2009 21:08:39 GMT -8
From the briefing on August 27th:
Check out the map at 2:09...the future north extension terminus is the Hollywood Bowl!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 17, 2009 6:57:30 GMT -8
From the briefing on August 27th: Check out the map at 2:09...the future north extension terminus is the Hollywood Bowl! Thanks for sharing that P. I might add that; " Possible future northern extension" would be a more apt description. I doubt seriously that it's been given any serious study. But yea, that would be some serious connectivity; a second spine if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 17, 2009 8:46:59 GMT -8
BRT, as much as I hate it, would free up money for other projects like the Downtown Connector which are much more dire in need, at least in my opinion. However, I can't bring myself to endorse BRT. With light rail, our whole system gets bigger and increases overall ridership. I don't think picking a "lesser" mode to "free up funds" is a good way to pick a project. While funds are finite resource the project chosen should be based on it's own merits. Given that, n terms of ridership potential, I favor the broader development picture of using rail to steer density where it is most appropriate. The fact of the matter is that the population continues to grow at a rapid pass in Los Angeles. There will be pressure to either continue to sprawl outward as we have done for a hundred years or to put density in a haphazard manner that is not appropriate. Rail offers another option of developing density along defined corridors with infrastructure to accommodate growth. When freeways are planned they are often planned to accommodate expected future growth so to should other types of transportation infrastructure. The Crenshaw Corridor not only has potential to steer future growth in a planned fashion but services an existing urban population, connects major points of interest and potentially three urban rail lines. If your going to add a spine it should be a strong spine not a weak one. The alternative is a bus corridor that while definitely an enhancement does not have the potential to steer our urban growth. Further, while it may be appropriate to handle current transit loads it does not have the capacity to scale like rail does. This has been demonstrated in our very own Orange Line which quickly peaked out in ridership at numbers while impressive for a bus are on the low side for rail. Yes, money is a finite resource and yes rail is expensive. This is why I support light rail. We simply don't have the money to throw away at project that are going to be maxed out in five years. LRT gives the most long range bang for the buck when compared with subway and bus rapid transit.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 17, 2009 9:39:43 GMT -8
I still favor rail on Crenshaw. Saunders is right: public transit policy is important not only for increasing transit ridership but for its influence on land use. (Although you don't want to use the "influence land use" argument around the "Save Leimert" crowd, who will turn that into their main NIMBY argument.)
But realistically, at $1.3 billion for 17k 13k daily boardings, the FTA is going to see a hefty price per daily boarding: $76,000 $100,000. That's going to be a tough sell.
(BTW, I will still argue that the 17k 13k number is too low. I need to look at the methodology that lead to that number.)
For the project itself, we have the following arguments:
* For residents of the west side of South L.A., the line will provide connections to job centers and destinations throughout the growing rail network, including Downtown and beyond. * For residents of the entire region, the line will provide a connection to LAX, Inglewood, Leimert Park and the Crenshaw Plaza shopping district. * The line will lead to investment in the Crenshaw corridor and provide local construction jobs.
Nobody disputes these arguments. Building LRT instead of BRT is the tougher sell. Here are the arguments in favor of LRT:
* Over the long term, LRT has the potential to draw greater ridership because riders prefer trains over buses (for speed, reliability and comfort). * The line is less likely to "max out" in terms of total capacity if built as LRT. * The line is a permanent investment that, amortized over several decades, will be well worth the cost to build it now rather than later.
There is an issue of social justice here, as well as a potential economic recovery argument. This infrastructure will be useful not only for those boarding within the corridor, but for others wanting access to the corridor and LAX.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 17, 2009 9:46:27 GMT -8
this is just a gut feeling, but it seems like to me that the Crenshaw Line is one of those rail lines where ridership is highly dependant on where you put the end points. so, a rail line from LAX to Crenshaw is not going to be very successful. but, use the Green Line tracks to get you to Redondo Beach — either the existing Marine station or the much-desired South Bay Galleria terminal — and you have a much better rail line. or, a rail line from the South Bay to Wilshire. or transfer to the Expo line for connections to downtown and the USC area. or from downtown to LAX: would it be faster or slower than the Blue Line to Green Line transfer? I don't know if Crenshaw deserves the elevated spot that it has been given in the political process, but any North-South line in the Westside/South Bay region has to be examined from the point of view of a Regional Connector of sorts. what are the real, true end points? Well calling Downtown LA an end point for Crenshaw is fine, but measuring riders on the Crenshaw segment will still be the criteria for ridership measurement. Anything else and you are just calling Expo riders Crenshaw riders. Also, realize if Crenshaw trains are routed directly onto Expo that will hurt Expo ridership to some degree even if it may benefit Crenshaw ridership. For example say someone getting on a train at USC wants to go to Santa Monica. They get on a west bound train only to discover at Crenshaw they must transfer and wait to avoid going down Crenshaw. Either that or they must wait for an additional train at the USC station increasing their travel time. As you know the headways are going to be challenging on Expo with the Blue Line tie-in, so we can't offer more trains. If trains are routed down Crenshaw it will hurt overall Expo ridership and in my opinion it could be quite measurable. Basically routing trains down Crenshaw will just feed a less used route at the expense of a more heavily used route. I personally don't think this makes much sense.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 17, 2009 9:51:38 GMT -8
I still favor rail on Crenshaw. Saunders is right: public transit policy is important not only for increasing transit ridership but for its influence on land use. (Although you don't want to use the "influence land use" argument around the "Save Leimert" crowd, who will turn that into their main NIMBY argument.) But realistically, at $1.3 billion for 17k daily boardings, the FTA is going to see a hefty price per daily boarding: $76,000. That's going to be a tough sell. (BTW, I will still argue that the 17k number is too low. I need to look at the methodology that lead to that number.) For the project itself, we have the following arguments: * For residents of the west side of South L.A., the line will provide connections to job centers and destinations throughout the growing rail network, including Downtown and beyond. * For residents of the entire region, the line will provide a connection to LAX, Inglewood, Leimert Park and the Crenshaw Plaza shopping district. * The line will lead to investment in the Crenshaw corridor and provide local construction jobs. Nobody disputes these arguments. Building LRT instead of BRT is the tougher sell. Here are the arguments in favor of LRT: * Over the long term, LRT has the potential to draw greater ridership because riders prefer trains over buses (for speed, reliability and comfort). * The line is less likely to "max out" in terms of total capacity if built as LRT. * The line is a permanent investment that, amortized over several decades, will be well worth the cost to build it now rather than later. There is an issue of social justice here, as well as a potential economic recovery argument. This infrastructure will be useful not only for those boarding within the corridor, but for others wanting access to the corridor and LAX. Metrocenter, FYI, you have your numbers transposed. The DEIR actually shows a cost more like $1.7B - $1.8B for just 13k riders so that is over $125k per rider.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 17, 2009 10:01:32 GMT -8
^ I wouldn't be so worried about Westsiders getting the shaft by those other people down south. If the Santa Monica line has triple the ridership of the Crenshaw line, then Metro will simply put more trains on the Santa Monica line.
Why should Santa Monica riders have access to the Expo tracks east of Crenshaw, while Crenshaw riders do not? Why should we create a system where Crenshaw riders always have to transfer, and Santa Monica riders never have to transfer?
To me, the idea of not connecting the Crenshaw Line into Expo, just for the convenience of Westside riders, sounds like the old "separate but equal" argument. For me, there's no reason the two lines can't share the tracks to Downtown. It'll just require some load balancing, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 17, 2009 10:11:39 GMT -8
Metrocenter, FYI, you have your numbers transposed. The DEIR actually shows a cost more like $1.7B - $1.8B for just 13k riders so that is over $125k per rider. The projected daily boardings of LRT up to Expo is appx. 13,000. I did misquote this number. The base LRT Alternative has a projected cost of $1.3 billion. Thus, the cost per daily boarding is $100k. I have made the correction above.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 17, 2009 10:30:32 GMT -8
^ I wouldn't be so worried about Westsiders getting the shaft by those other people down south. If the Santa Monica line has triple the ridership of the Crenshaw line, then Metro will simply put more trains on the Santa Monica line. Why should Santa Monica riders have access to the Expo tracks east of Crenshaw, while Crenshaw riders do not? Why should we create a system where Crenshaw riders always have to transfer, and Santa Monica riders never have to transfer? To me, the idea of not connecting the Crenshaw Line into Expo, just for the convenience of Westside riders, sounds like the old "separate but equal" argument. For me, there's no reason the two lines can't share the tracks to Downtown. It'll just require some load balancing, that's all. I'm not saying you could never have a Crenshaw train go directly onto the Expo tracks, but it is not the win-win everyone seems to want to think it is. There is a negative side to this and that is reduced headways on Expo, since it cannot handle more trains at peak times. If Expo is a successful line in and of itself do you want to reduce its capacity across its entire east-west length? Also, this creates a confusing system for novice riders and it is difficult for someone reading a system map to determine this (we'll have to name new lines for SM to the South Bay and from DTLA to the South Bay and so forth).
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 17, 2009 10:34:32 GMT -8
I'm curious about the very low ridership projections. The blue line was expected to generate 30,000 passenger per day by 2000. Today the Blue Line average is around 80,000 PPD. It seems to me given LAX, the alignments central location, it's more direct route to downtown (even with a transfer), transit dependency and potentially 3 rail connections, that these estimates are very conservative. I would expect Crenshaw to beat Gold Line phase 1, not halve it.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 17, 2009 10:49:52 GMT -8
Will the Green line trains will be able to directly access the Crenshaw tracks and either go to Exposition (and later Wilshire) or go to the Redondo Beach (with it's many job centers as well)? These are major destinations for people from all parts of the city, transfer or not, so I hope it is direct. I think a transfer at Exposition would be fine to get Downtown or Santa Monica, it would be like the 7th and Metro transfer point. I only hope Expo is building a big enough station to handle the crowds.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 17, 2009 12:04:35 GMT -8
Well the Crenshaw line is expected to go south towards Redondo Beach with the Green Line so there will be an interface between the two. If you've ever been to Aviation Station and looked west you'd see the two connectors that will eventually have Green and Crenshaw line trains connecting to/from LAX.
My guess is that for the Green Line, trains from Norwalk will go to either LAX or to Redondo Beach, and trains from Redondo Beach will do the same. I do think it'd be nice for the trains originating from Norwalk to continue to the Expo line instead of ending at LAX, but I think if they don't do this the big picture may be to wait for another northwest spur (Lincoln Blvd/Sepulveda Blvd) for Green Line trains to travel to Santa Monica *Shrug*
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 17, 2009 13:48:11 GMT -8
There are four current and planned southern LRTs: Green, Blue, Expo and Crenshaw. I would expect to see the following:
* Blue Line as it currently is. * Expo Line from Downtown L.A. to Santa Monica * Crenshaw Line from Downtown L.A. to Redondo Beach. * Green Line from Norwalk up to Century Blvd and possibly Westchester.
This would result in overlap in three places:
* triple overlap on Flower north of Washington (Blue, Expo, Crenshaw) * double overlap on Exposition and Flower between Crenshaw and Washington (Expo, Crenshaw) * double overlap on Aviation between Century and Imperial (Crenshaw, Green) As masonite has pointed out, the triple overlap zone on Flower Street could become a problem. I think, longer term, the solution is for Metro to add at least one more track on Flower Street.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 17, 2009 15:38:03 GMT -8
Well calling Downtown LA an end point for Crenshaw is fine, but measuring riders on the Crenshaw segment will still be the criteria for ridership measurement. Anything else and you are just calling Expo riders Crenshaw riders. Downtown LA can be just one of the end points of such as service. The other thing that I will repeat again is this additional service need not be additive it could augment service that needs a push opposite the peak direction of service. The current peak direction of all of the regional east-west bus services on the Westside are as follows; WB in the AM and EB in the PM. Crenshaw and similiar regional bus corridors running north-south EB and NB towards Downtown in the AM and WB and SB in the PM. Crenshaw Corridor could do that with a longer headway. Of course we still need the Regional Connector to allow more of this style service to work. We could take a page out of the DC Metro where they run additive service on the Green and Yellow lines. That's an operational issue which can be alleviated by timed-transfers. I doubt that seriously. It's all in how it is operated. Considering that peak direction of Expo Corridor will be WB in the AM and EB in the PM, and Crenshaw will be the opposite direction with a longer headway EB in the AM and WB in the PM.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 17, 2009 15:55:16 GMT -8
For Crenshaw to transfer to Expo is consistent with many other examples of rail lines crossing with transfers rather than branching from a common track. L.A.'s Blue Line crossing the Green Line is one.
Another is the discussion about Hollywood and Highland and whether the Pink Line would be a branch of the Red Line vs. the end point with transfer that has been selected.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 17, 2009 16:28:34 GMT -8
Well calling Downtown LA an end point for Crenshaw is fine, but measuring riders on the Crenshaw segment will still be the criteria for ridership measurement. Anything else and you are just calling Expo riders Crenshaw riders. Downtown LA can be just one of the end points of such as service. The other thing that I will repeat again is this additional service need not be additive it could augment service that needs a push opposite the peak direction of service. The current peak direction of all of the regional east-west bus services on the Westside are as follows; WB in the AM and EB in the PM. Crenshaw and similiar regional bus corridors running north-south EB and NB towards Downtown in the AM and WB and SB in the PM. Crenshaw Corridor could do that with a longer headway. Of course we still need the Regional Connector to allow more of this style service to work. We could take a page out of the DC Metro where they run additive service on the Green and Yellow lines. That's an operational issue which can be alleviated by timed-transfers. I doubt that seriously. It's all in how it is operated. Considering that peak direction of Expo Corridor will be WB in the AM and EB in the PM, and Crenshaw will be the opposite direction with a longer headway EB in the AM and WB in the PM. Good point on enhancing the non-peak direction. However, there is the possibility that both directions will be near peak as even though freeway speeds show a westbound morning commute, many of the people going east in the morning are going downtown and have to pay for their own parking so they are much more incentivized to use public transit, especially considering there is more of a network there to get them right to their actual destination which isn't the case with Expo in its western reaches. On the timed transfers, this doesn't make sense to me. Timed transfers would apply if Crenshaw were to stop at Expo and the arrival and departures could be timed to coincide with Expo east and west bound trains, which is what I would envision as our best option.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 17, 2009 16:59:14 GMT -8
Not to mention, if we want the Crenshaw Line to continue north of Expo, don't preclude that by making Crenshaw a branch of Expo. Here's the map from the video (screen copies from YouTube), which shows Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas clearly sees a larger north-south corridor.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 17, 2009 17:03:48 GMT -8
As masonite has pointed out, the triple overlap zone on Flower Street could become a problem. I think, longer term, the solution is for Metro to add at least one more track on Flower Street. Build the Regional Connector sooner and build the Crenshaw Line to at least Wilshire. Good point on enhancing the non-peak direction. However, there is the possibility that both directions will be near peak as even though freeway speeds show a westbound morning commute, many of the people going east in the morning are going downtown and have to pay for their own parking so they are much more incentivized to use public transit, especially considering there is more of a network there to get them right to their actual destination which isn't the case with Expo in its western reaches. There is a possiblity it would, there's more of a possibilty that it won't based on the ridership projection that you've refered to because Santa Monica would be under these same parameters. However, the piece of having more of a network is an essential piece of this. As the network expands these roles change and will require slight adjustments to it and have the roles of these pieces change as well. This does make sense or it doesn't make sense, I can't quite follow cause it sounds like it makes sense to you after the sentence. A timed transfer would work for this example in the Westbound direction; When an Expo train leaves the Crenshaw station within one minute of the Expo train leaving that platform a southbound Crenshaw Corridor train arrives on the platform. Picks up those passengers and proceeds to turn and head down Crenshaw.Not to mention, if we want the Crenshaw Line to continue north of Expo, don't preclude that by making Crenshaw a branch of Expo. I would agree, the strategy would be more of how do we make this an interim cost-effective station/platform so that the line is feasible and it doesn't jeopardize the long term design of the route to continue north underground. What if the line had a temporary portal north of 39th Street and continued at-grade until Rodeo Road. Then the train turn at a 45 degree angle and end with a temporary stub-end terminal (with a single track switch to allow trains to be switched between lines) built on the block bounded by Crenshaw to the West, Rodeo Road to the South, Expo on the North and Bronson to the East,as illustrated in the sketch below. An new eastbound Expo platform would be needed and a very wide additional pedestrian crossing on Bronson to allow westbound passengers with an easy transfer to reach the extra platform.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 17, 2009 20:20:52 GMT -8
I think that the others have said it better than I can, so I'll just say that Supervisor Ridley-Thomas' vision is just right. I think that a north-south Crenshaw Line from the South Bay Galleria to the Red Line, to be built in stages, will be just a super project that will complement all the east-west lines getting so much attention.
It will truly create a transit network that will be of greater value than any direct Downtown/LAX LRT lines that would simply make Crenshaw a branch of Expo.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 17, 2009 22:10:15 GMT -8
Plugged in the actual construction costs of the 1.8 mile tunnel on the under construction Gold Line Eastside Extension project and the 0.5 mile trench on the Expo, extrapolated the costs to 2011 dollars assuming 2.5% annual inflation (which is very generous given this construction environment), and they’re not matching up.
Metro should be able to build this line from Wilshire to LAX at $1.8B or just slightly more.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 17, 2009 22:47:27 GMT -8
Incidentally, there are certain "truths" in ridership modeling: 1) the maximum distance the overwhelming majority of riders can be relied upon to walk is 1/4-mile 2) transfer drastically decrease ridership Regarding #2, with respect to the Crenshaw Line that heads downtown that hit is about 1/2 to 2/3rds of ridership, which illustrates a need for Downtown-LAX travel. Just because travel between Downtown LA-LAX via Crenshaw is needed that doesn't mean travel to LAX-Hollywood via Crenshaw isn't also needed. The reality as I said days ago, is that both are needed, which is why capacity is so important to our system, however absent substantial forward thinking and resources only one will ever be possible. (LAX to Hollywood) The ability to interline is important in our poly-nuclear and dispersed region. The only people who dispute this just so happen to be the most vocal advocates for at-grade crossings at our city's busiest intersections and see no difference between the transportation challenges of Los Angeles (4M) and Portland (550K). Indeed, it is that design at LA's most congested areas that prohibits interlining and has prohibited Crenshaw or any other line from operating as an Expo branch (Venice Beach or Westwood).
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 17, 2009 23:13:51 GMT -8
Plugged in the actual construction costs of the 1.8 mile tunnel on the under construction Gold Line Eastside Extension project and the 0.5 mile trench on the Expo, extrapolated the costs to 2011 dollars assuming 2.5% annual inflation (which is very generous given this construction environment), and they’re not matching up. Metro should be able to build this line from Wilshire to LAX at $1.8B or just slightly more. The Eastside tunnel is 1.6 miles portal-to-portal (from Google maps) and the Expo underpass is .23 miles portal-to-portal (from FEIS profile). The Eastside Gold Line was bid with two design-build contracts: one for the tunneling and station box excavation alone, the other for everything else. From the April 2004 Metro staff report (Construction Committee, item 23): On February 28 2002, the MTA Board of Directors approved solicitation of a Design-Build contract for construction of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Stations, Trackwork and Systems elements of the Project. The project also includes a Design- Bid-Build contract for the Tunnel and Stations Excavation segment. The final bid amount - for both contracts combined - by Eastside LRT Constructors was $586.8M in March, 2004. If you're using the budgeted contract amount for tunneling and station excavation alone you're not including all of the costs of subway construction.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 17, 2009 23:25:03 GMT -8
Interesting how the Washington D.C. Metro map illustrates at most two lines sharing one right-of-way - the same as L.A.'s Red/Purple and Blue/Expo - and a number of transfer stations between different lines of its network. Suppose conversely that alternating Crenshaw trains went to downtown and Hollywood. On average, half the time a rider would have to wait for the second train, vs. always take the next train and transfer.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 18, 2009 8:57:53 GMT -8
Plugged in the actual construction costs of the 1.8 mile tunnel on the under construction Gold Line Eastside Extension project and the 0.5 mile trench on the Expo, extrapolated the costs to 2011 dollars assuming 2.5% annual inflation (which is very generous given this construction environment), and they’re not matching up. Metro should be able to build this line from Wilshire to LAX at $1.8B or just slightly more. The Eastside tunnel is 1.6 miles portal-to-portal (from Google maps) and the Expo underpass is .23 miles portal-to-portal (from FEIS profile). The Eastside Gold Line was bid with two design-build contracts: one for the tunneling and station box excavation alone, the other for everything else. From the April 2004 Metro staff report (Construction Committee, item 23): On February 28 2002, the MTA Board of Directors approved solicitation of a Design-Build contract for construction of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Stations, Trackwork and Systems elements of the Project. The project also includes a Design- Bid-Build contract for the Tunnel and Stations Excavation segment. The final bid amount - for both contracts combined - by Eastside LRT Constructors was $586.8M in March, 2004. If you're using the budgeted contract amount for tunneling and station excavation alone you're not including all of the costs of subway construction. Let's go more into the total capital costs of the Eastside Gold Line. From the FY 2009 FTA New Starts Report, The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $898.81 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $490.70 million. Here are capital cost categories from the Eastside Gold Line Final Supplemental EIS/EIR, Table 5-1, Year-of-Expenditure Dollars in Millions for LRT Option B (approximately what they finally built): Construction and Procurement Guideways - $210.9 Yards and Shops - $6.3 Systems - $74.1 Stations - $97.2 LRT vehicles and buses - $113.3 Special Conditions - $68.0 Right-of-Way - $37.9 Subtotal - $607.7 Professional Services - $156.3 Project Contingency - $62.3 Total Cost - $826.3 If we add everything under Construction except Vehicles and Right-of-Way, plus Professional Services, the total is $544.8 million. Add the majority of the Contingency and it matches the design-build contract amount. Although, a small portion of Professional Services is not included in the construction contract. For example, on the December 2003 Metro board agenda was a $3.7M contract with Carter & Burgess for Construction Management Support Services in 2004. And I suspect the final agreement between Metro and LAUSD about rebuilding the Ramona High School at 3rd & Indiana is in addition to the FSEIS budget. For estimating the cost of subway construction the Purple Line citation of $500M/mile is the total project cost per mile. Which is approximately the relevant number for a Crenshaw extension north of Expo, a little high mostly in that L.A.'s LRT subway station boxes are shorter.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 18, 2009 11:13:08 GMT -8
2.5% inflation being generous? What country is this based off on China? The third paragraph in the article explains why this 2.5% is such a short fleeting time that this project nor any other project in the LA area could not capitalize on, scratch that there is one project, the Orange Line busway extension to Chatsworth, maybe two with Expo Phase 2 if there no lawsuits or dealys. Because of the recession the value of the materrials goes down however the minute the economy improves there is an immediate scarcity which drives the prices up. Typical construction inflation is 4-6%. On top of that the LRT corridor north of Expo hasn’t even finalized a route or has an EIR approved going for that Northern portion so the earliest construction could possibly begin for that northern section is maybe 2014 or 2015. That value doesn’t include construction contingencies (which is a cushion needed to pay for unforseen events or environmental variables) which is typically between 4-7% of the total project cost, Professional services of the designers and engineers to make the documents and needed on the site changes that is between 15-20% of the total project costs.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 18, 2009 11:16:04 GMT -8
I think we all know the difference between construction cost and professional services costs, and even if we didn't it's in the DEIR.
Still coming in way low with plenty left over for professional services and some contingency.
Ironically, I think their grade separation costs differentials are too low.
|
|