|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 18, 2009 11:18:54 GMT -8
Umm no annual index increase of 2.5% is generous considering the economic conditions for the past year, and those projected over the next 3.
Several of the project bids have been coming in lower than projected and have been for some time now. Public work is the only real work available in the states right now.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 11:42:26 GMT -8
I think the concentration now should be on having this built as LRT. We are building a system here, and we shouldn't regard this separately from the system. Part of this line will be the LAX extension and Harbor Subdivision rail.
Building this as BRT would ruin the plans of building an LRT system in Los Angeles. They got rid of rail in the past in favor of the buses, we are now trying to bring back quality rail transit again, as in other metropolitan areas.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 18, 2009 12:18:23 GMT -8
I agree with this. Who's to say the Orange Line busway will not be open to car traffic again? It happened with the demise of the paving of the former Red/Yellow Car lines and recently with the I-10 El Monte busway.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 18, 2009 12:44:30 GMT -8
^ Same here. The BRT being proposed is for curb lanes on Crenshaw and paving the Harbor Subdivision all of which to lose one of our most important assests to our future rail planning in the Harbor Subdivision.
The more I have been re-sketching ideas or ways in which to phase LRT to Expo the more the answer lies to build the segment from Wilshire to King in one swoop as a bored tunnel. Building a subway station where they're plannning on locating it would require that area be cut open not only once but twice right next to the Expo Line, and if we're going to do that we might as well just wait it out.
Then the next question we could be thinking about is how should Crenshaw be phased as LRT to protect the long term goal?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 18, 2009 13:00:34 GMT -8
if the Crenshaw Line ended up as BRT, I would oppose it. there's no reason to continue this "BRT is as good as LRT" nonsense. obviously, BRT can't handle the ridership. even Brazil is talking about light rail, which should tell you something.
as a rail line, you open up many more possible routes. I think my last post got misinterpreted because I was presenting several possible options for the Crenshaw Line.
I'm not entirely convinced that a direct connection between the Crenshaw Line and Expo would be the best idea because of the whole issue with too many branches. however, it is a possibility. one way or the other, I would think that a lot of Crenshaw Line riders would make the transfer from Crenshaw to Expo because of the downtown-to-LAX or downtown-to-South Bay possibility.
I love the idea of Crenshaw being part of a greater North-South line, especially if that rail line headed south into the South Bay. Such a rail line would have multiple possible end points/ transfer points - South Bay/LAX/Crenshaw/Expo/Wilshire to (eventually even) Hollywood. There's a rail line worth building (after the ones already further along in planning, of course).
Build it in phases, because that's what we can afford, and build the middle section (Expo to Green) first, because that is what has political support.
EDIT: Also, build the middle section first, because you might FINALLY get that Green Line to LAX as an added bonus.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 18, 2009 13:08:21 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. You don't get any construction without professional services to design and manage the construction. Professional services tend to be proportional to the construction cost. What number, what reference? Or as they required in school math classes, show your work.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 18, 2009 15:31:20 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. If they stayed with this paradigm then we wouldn't see a Expo, Blue and Gold through downtown. I suspect you'll see Blue through to Pasadena and Expo to East LA and the Gold line continuing in it's current alignment. If an East L.A. person wanted to go to downtown they would catch the Expo on a gold line track. (Side Note: another reason 'Expo' should not be called Expo it will eventually go places far from Exposition Blvd.) With that said, in terms of destinations, it would be nice if Crenshaw went to either the Red Line or to Downtown L.A. Expo in it's self is not a destination and their ridership projections show this.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 18, 2009 22:21:05 GMT -8
I think that James has it exactly right.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 19, 2009 4:42:49 GMT -8
To advocate for BRT on Crenshaw is to advocate for nothing to be built. The BRT is so carved up to avoid the obvious adverse traffic impacts to the point of being useless. It's not even real BRT like Curtiba. It's not even "fake BRT" like the SFV Busway. It's "fake BRT-lite." Metro could and should start running a Rapid from Wilshire/Western station to LAX to document it's limited appeal and travel time benefit. Furthermore, I could go out there this weekend paint some lines, get the neighborhood councils to put up some canopies at the stations and it won't cost me a few hundred million dollars. Expo in it's self is not a destination and their ridership projections show this. The 13K ridership projections assumes that the following projects are NOT built: 1) Wilshire subway 2) LAX passengers 3) Expo Phase 2 I understood #1 when I was first told about this over a year ago and still do today given that the new LRTP has not been adopted (though I thought Wilshire subway was in the RTP - I need to check). Re: #2, unless I'm mistaken the LAX Master Plan has yet to be approved. But Expo Phase 2 has been in the constrained LRTP plan since 2001 so I don't get #3. Maybe Metro is being...logical, and realize how they've jeopardized Phase 2 of the project by failing to grade separate south South LA community portion of Phase 1. Who knows? Back to title of the thread, a Crenshaw Line from Wilshire to LAX, including ridership from Expo Phase 2, calculating the LAX passengers and a Leimert Park Village station = a conservative 40-45K, based off the numbers provided by Metro. The more I have been re-sketching ideas or ways in which to phase LRT to Expo the more the answer lies to build the segment from Wilshire to King in one swoop as a bored tunnel. If going that route (starting at Wilshire and heading south assuming Metro's cost estimate of $1.2B to get to King) Leimert Park Village is a better terminus station. King has the same problems you're articulating about Exposition with even more sensitive land use, right-of-way constraints and congestion issues. It's easier to extract the TBM from the triangle between Vernon and 46th, which also happens to be a better/cheaper location for the Leimert Park Village station box. And you know the big problem with not making it to the Harbor Subdivision would be the location/absence of the yard. Perhaps a small one could be constructed under a mixed use development at the Midtown Crossing site until the line is extended to the Green Line??? I haven't measured the site or reviewed the requirements for a small yard to store the 16-31 trains, so I don't know if it would fit. (And I am being a bit bias in that I've been looking for a good reason to halt the horrible development plans at Midtown Crossing for a while.) But if it does fit, the topography of the area, would likely allow the maintenance yard to be built not much shallower than the site is currently. The Pico side would simply need to be lined with mixed use. The Venice side of the parcel is at least 40 feet below the street. I think the smartest course right now is to request the EIR process continue evaluating the entire line from Wilshire to LAX. Request evaluation of two different scenarios/sequencing plans: Scenario A:Phase 1: Wilshire to Leimert Park Village Phase 2: Leimert Park Village to Green Line Scenario B:Phase 1: Expo to Green Line with the TBM launched from Expo/Crenshaw not Coliseum/Crenshaw Phase 2: Expo to Wilshire Under Scenario B adopt the current "options" into the baseline along with an extended underground section from Leimert Park Village to 60th with an underground Slauson Station, and consider grade separations at the 6 remaining at-grade crossings on the Harbor Subdivision as options: Option 1: Extending the underground section 3/4 miles from Victoria to Redondo with a trench West Blvd station (eliminating at-grade crossings at Brynhurst, West and Redondo) Option 2: Extend the La Cienega overpass to the east past Oak and to the west to the Manchester overpass with an elevated Manchester station (eliminating at-grade crossings at Oak and Hindry). Incidentally, the distance between Manchester overpass and La Cienega overpass is ~1000 feet. Option 3: A grade separation at Arbor Vitae If moving the Centinela/Florence crossing from at-grade to below grade, even with the topography of the location, is only an additional $13M, and going from at-grade to elevated at Manchester is only $11M, it would appear that options 1-3 are an additional $75-125M, the benefit of which would be a line totally grade separated. (But then, ironically, I think Metro's Manchester and Centinela grade separation estimates are too low.) Nonetheless, regarding evaluating the benefit of adding the 75-125 million vs. cost, someone at Metro might want to do some basic arithmetic NOW to avoid the same problems on the Harbor Subdivision line, as is currently evident on the Expo line (limited capacity); a problem which is prohibiting the Crenshaw line from starting off as a branch line, and costing both the Crenshaw and Expo line and the system tens of thousands of riders. 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 Oh right Darrell, that's why the 1.6 mile tunneling portion of the Eastside Light Rail cost more than the entire construction cost of the project. At just 80% of your $500M/mile estimate the underground section cost alone is $640M (1.6 X $400M = $640M). MTA must have hired the guys from Enron do the accounting for that project, because they've managed to hide hundreds of millions of dollars spent on those bored tunnels! Incidentally, the number given for the 3.3 mile extension from Wilshire to Expo by Metro is $1.1B. By your estimate they're off by over a half a billion dollars. All of this makes me wonder if you've taken out a patent on your calculator, which consistently multiplies the cost of grade separated light rail cost, and divides the the cost of at-grade light rail. I say you begin calling it the "gridlock advocate's calculator (R)." I keep away from ballpark cost/mile statements when it comes time to get down to the nitty-gritty on cost estimates, for exactly this type of reason. Right-of-way constraints, soil conditions, station box locations all greatly affect the price and construction possibilities. In the case for the Eastside Extension tunneling project the reality is that tunneling costs including station design and construction was about $292M.Re: Crenshaw's underground cost assumptions, there are several issues. The first involves the estimate that the addition of one underground station (Leimert Park Village) is $155M. It is way off the mark considering the Eastside underground stations for design and construction both came in under $35M, a fact you confirm confirmed in your post. Allow me to refresh your memory dear gridlock advocate: 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. Total cost for ALL stations = $97.2M Even if we added 35% for contingency & professional services and another 35% for inflation, the Leimert Park Village station doesn't even come close to $155M. Neither does the $236M 0.33 mile cut-and-cover tunnel from Exposition to Coliseum and cut-and-cover station at Expo. But I am sensitive to the possibility that cut-and-cover in this area might be much more expensive than bored tunnel, given the right-of-way constraints, traffic conditions caused by the at-grade Expo Line Crenshaw crossing and utilities. It makes me wonder why launching the TBM from Exposition, as opposed to Coliseum was not considered. Like I said, much of the cost breakdown requires elaboration and explanation, especially since the FTA and MTA have two under construction projects from which to extrapolate.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 19, 2009 11:12:29 GMT -8
The first question should be: what is the purpose of the Crenshaw Line? Is it (a) to get southwest residents to/from Downtown? Or is it (b) to provide a true crosstown line that leverages all the east-west lines, including Green, Expo, Purple and Red? You shouldn't move forward with any project where the purpose is so ambiguous. At this point in the game, Metro should be pursuing one of the goals (a) or (b), not a little bit of both.
I can accept the argument for (b), building Crenshaw to create a true crosstown line. If this is the goal, then I also agree with Damien's Scenario 1, where Phase I (Wilshire to Leimert Park) should be built first, all subway, and Phase II should be built next, south of Leimert Park, with grade separations as needed.
And yes, I also agree with everybody (sounds unanimous?) that BRT would be worse than nothing, because it would close a door on LRT and use of the Harbor Subdivision route. It would be a major step backward.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 19, 2009 11:33:19 GMT -8
The projected lousy ridership of the Crenshaw Line from the last MIS done a few years doesn't take so many factors into account (like the Expo and Wilshire Lines) that it should be entirely ignored...we just don't have the time to do another MIS for the Crenshaw Line. Damien is absolutely correct here.
Furthermore, BRT is about as good as doing nothing, and if we go that direction we might as well just throw a dirt-cheap, third-rate Rapid Bus on the route and be done with it. Again, Damien is absolutely correct here.
Damien is yet again correct when he says that Crenshaw should be built as if it absolutely WAS going to built in two phases, and connecting Wilshire to the Green Line.
I disagree, however, of the absolute need to have Crenshaw be a branch line of Expo instead of a focused north-south line at Crenshaw/Expo and with lots of good transfers. I do NOT think there will be signficant ridership problems in the short or long run.
...and, of course, I oppose any and all back-and-forth sniping and name-calling when simply "agreeing to disagree" is a more helpful approach. We've got plenty of heat here, but what we really need is light.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 19, 2009 11:45:46 GMT -8
Here's some useful information for cost estimating. First are LRT capital costs from the Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR. Table 5-4 Base LRT Alternative (Millions 2008 Dollars) 10 Guideway and Track Elements -- $339.7 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal -- $139.5 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings -- $55.6 40 Sitework and Special Conditions -- $139.3 50 Systems -- $69.7 -- Construction Subtotal -- $743.9 60 Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements -- $109.8 70 Vehicles -- $87.8 80 Professional Services -- $245.5 90 Unallocated Contingency -- $118.7 100 Finance Charges -- Total Cost (2008) Dollars -- $1,305.6 -- Year of Expenditure Cost -- $1,525.3 -- Total Length in Miles -- 8.5 But what are in these overall categories? Here are detailed descriptions of the FTA's SCC cost codes. 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 10.09 Track: Direct fixation 10.10 Track: Embedded 10.11 Track: Ballasted 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 20.05 Joint development 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 20.07 Elevators, escalators
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 30.05 Yard and Yard Track
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction
50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train control and signals 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 50.03 Traction power supply: substations 50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 50.05 Communications 50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 50.07 Central Control
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses
70 VEHICLES (number) 70.01 Light Rail 70.02 Heavy Rail 70.03 Commuter Rail 70.04 Bus 70.05 Other 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles 70.07 Spare parts
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 80.01 Preliminary Engineering 80.02 Final Design 80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 80.08 Start up
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 19, 2009 12:42:00 GMT -8
I disagree, however, of the absolute need to have Crenshaw be a branch line of Expo instead of a focused north-south line at Crenshaw/Expo and with lots of good transfers. I do NOT think there will be signficant ridership problems in the short or long run. It's an academic discussion. Crenshaw by nature of a variety of decisions that have been made has no option but to be SOLELY a north-south line. My objection is the truthiness of the debates that so often take place in regard to this mass transit issue. Take the timed transfers theory you and others have made. Time transfers at Crenshaw/Expo is somewhere in the realm of not easy to near impossible to accomplish given the many street-running portions of both lines. This has been pointed in numerous posts on this board with supporting documentation - from Metro nonetheless, and yet there is still this "belief" that its a way to recapture the over 20K-plus riders lost (in even the best estimate) from the lack of Crenshaw to start off as a branch line. And thank you darrell for further breaking down the FTA break down. Here's the link to Pg. 5-27 of the DEIR, which breaks down the costs of the various options. People can read those two pieces of information in the context of this debate to understand the source of my contention.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 19, 2009 13:27:14 GMT -8
Let's use that structure to find the additional costs of some of the Crenshaw LRT Design Options (2.0). Costs are from Table 5-5 (Millions of 2008 Dollars). 2. Bridge vs. at-grade crossing at Manchester Ave. Guideway -- $10.1 Sitework -- $1.0 Prof. Svcs. -- $3.7 Contingency -- $1.5 Total -- $16.33. Underpass vs. at-grade crossing at Centinela Ave. Guideway -- $7.1 Sitework -- $0.7 Right-of-way -- $1.7 Prof. Svcs. -- $2.6 Contingency -- $1.2 Total -- $13.24. Cut-and-cover tunnel vs. aerial alignment between Victoria Ave. and 60th St. (0.6 miles). Guideway -- $18.0 Sitework -- $1.6 Prof. Svcs. -- $6.5 Contingency -- $2.6 Total -- $28.75. Added below-grade station at Vernon Ave. Stations -- $96.0 Sitework -- $9.6 Systems -- $0.4 Prof. Svcs. -- $35.0 Contingency -- $14.1 Total -- $155.26. Below-grade alignment between 39th St. and Exposition Blvd. with below-grade station at Expo, vs. at-grade (0.6 miles). Guideway -- $60.3 Stations -- $90.4 Sitework -- $14.8 Right-of-way -- ($5.8) Prof. Svcs. -- $54.6 Contingency -- $21.4 Total -- $235.8Added: Already been on page 5-27, working to present its numbers in a more useful form above. Don't forget, these are incremental costs over the baseline, not the total cost of the feature.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 19, 2009 18:06:25 GMT -8
A few days ago the abbreviation TSM showed up in a post. I've been studying electric railways since the days of PERy, but can't come up with a definition for TSM. "Timber Suspended Monorail"?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 19, 2009 18:19:30 GMT -8
A few days ago the abbreviation TSM showed up in a post. I've been studying electric railways since the days of PERy, but can't come up with a definition for TSM. "Timber Suspended Monorail"? Love it! No, "No Build" and "Transportation System Management" are obligatory options to be studied for FTA EISs in addition to "build alternatives" like LRT.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 19, 2009 22:02:40 GMT -8
Thanks for clearing up the confusion! I think I've seen "Transportation System Mgt." in various places, but not recently enough to remember. It brings to mind a photo I have of downtown Pasadena in 1918, with a traffic officer in the middle of Raymond and Colorado directing an assortment of streetcars, flivvers, bicyclists and pedestrians. Now that's TSM version 1.0!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 19, 2009 23:27:45 GMT -8
It seems to me more and more that the Crenshaw Line would have been better to consider as one project from Wilshire to LAX instead of just LAX to Expo. We don't have the funds to do that all with Measure R, but at least it might have a better chance of getting New Starts funds.
My problem with a lot of our projects is that we are not leveraging our local funds with federal funds enough. We are only trying for the Purple (and Pink) lines and the DTC. Yes, I know in the past we'd be lucky to get these two projects with New Starts, but with the new government and potential new transportation bill, we have to try for more. Otherwise, we won't build much.
Expo Phase II should be a New Starts project. I know it would have taken a bit longer to go through the process, but that was the original intent and it would have been worth it to have New Starts funds and open in 2016 vs. going it alone and opening in 2015 IMO. Other cities are opening lines and most of them are New Starts projects. We are almost doing the opposite.
If this line can be a true North-South line with a medium or better cost-effectiveness considering the Purple Line and Expo Phase II are in play, then I would support it.
Anyone know the rule about being able to count future lines in ridership projections for the FTA measurement? Does it have to be under construction? This is key for the DTC as well, since Phase II Expo and the Foothill extension will add ridership here as well and if we can't count that yet that hurts us, although I figure by the time we lobby for federal funds they will be in the count (i.e. under construction).
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 20, 2009 11:23:59 GMT -8
I thought that Metro (or any transit authority) can apply for federal funding for only one project at a time. Once the Gold line Eastside is finished, Metro can ask for funding on one new project, and until that project is completed can ask for no more. I assume it would be the Expo Phase 2 or the Purple line that gets funded. I am sure there will be a battle over this one.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 20, 2009 11:32:08 GMT -8
Perhaps that was true with the previous Administration, but I suspect that there will be different rules in the current Administration.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 20, 2009 22:00:25 GMT -8
Here's my take on where we are on Crenshaw. * You know I'm a big supporter of the vision of an LAX-Hollywood north-south LRT line partly along Crenshaw. I agree with others that BRT provides little benefit over existing Rapid buses, plus it cannot support that larger vision. * Measure R provides $1,271K for the Crenshaw line. But Crenshaw LRT is not cost-competitive for federal funding, let alone while Los Angeles is seeking to fund the Purple Line and Regional Connector. * It's good to see that Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas gets the larger vision of LRT and a corridor all the way to Hollywood. * Within the current Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR process, to best support that vision I would support LRT to Expo, designed to be extended via a tunnel to Pico-San Vicente some time in the future when funding is available. Deadline for comments is Monday, October 26.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 21, 2009 8:11:51 GMT -8
That deadline is key, get yer comments in by 26 October. ...and, of course, I oppose any and all back-and-forth sniping and name-calling when simply "agreeing to disagree" is a more helpful approach. We've got plenty of heat here, but what we really need is light. Actually I think the discussion so far has been quite civil. And not only that, I think the dialogue has produced a good amount of consensus on several subjects, including the vision of the line as a north-south crosstown line, as well as the stance that BRT is worthless and must be opposed.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 21, 2009 10:00:12 GMT -8
I can accept the argument for (b), building Crenshaw to create a true crosstown line. If this is the goal, then I also agree with Damien's Scenario 1, where Phase I (Wilshire to Leimert Park) should be built first, all subway, and Phase II should be built next, south of Leimert Park, with grade separations as needed. I agree with that idea theoretically. Realistically, I can't because the reality will hit of, we've spent $1.2 B (in 2008 dollars) on this infrastructure from Wilshire/(La Brea? Fairfax? Beverly Center? we'll need more definition on the northern portion of this north-south corridor) to Leimert Park and there's no way to get the LRV's we need to operate inside the infrastructure we just built and spent over a billion dollars on so that it can be used for the general public. We could say well Berlin did it for their recent U55 extension, but alas, that was a special case where they have a vast network of existing rails to which the trains can be towed if needed from the Hauptabahnhof Station. Coupled with that alignment in whatever fashion NEEDING Wilshire Subway to be in operation to at least that transfer point (I think in the feasibilty study it noted the Wilshire Subway to Westwood) for the ridership to work out. Potentially screwing up whatever consensus we desperately need to leverage those scarse federal dollars because locally the infighting will happen because of something like this. (Within a nap I had, last night 9/21/09)A similiar idea that I was playing around with for fun would be to have the Wilshire Subway start from Westwood and continue East, because that is where the ridership is at, however the same logistical nightmare will present itself when the very businesses anticipating the opening of these stations with hordes of people then would flock to their business would have to deal with the dust and short term pains of construction of a subway station and then be forced to wait it out another few years until we connect the next piece of the infrastructure to actually allow trains to operate inside. I don't know of any public official who will risk their neck and clout because they have to wait a number of years to get the trains operating inside the infrastructure they just built which would get some reporters to talk about Metro incompetance and then the general John Q taxpayer will have a knee jerk field day balking at the fact that 'they've built a tunnel to nowhere!' Which is the central reason many of us noted that BRT needs to be rejected outright because of it's incompatability with the Harbor Subdivision which is an important asset to this transit corridor and future transit corridors. Here's my take on where we are on Crenshaw... * It's good to see that Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas gets the larger vision of LRT and a corridor all the way to Hollywood. * Within the current Crenshaw Draft EIS/EIR process, to best support that vision I would support LRT to Expo, designed to be extended via a tunnel to Pico-San Vicente some time in the future when funding is available. Deadline for comments is Monday, October 26. That is an approach that could work too, I would add to continue the EIR process of both the Wilshire Subway and Crenshaw corridor, even expedite it if at all possible so that the beginning planning/study of the northern corridor routing can take place.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 21, 2009 15:04:10 GMT -8
I'd no sooner base my argument on supposed political consensus or the Wilshire subway reaching Westwood by 2050!, than I'd predicate paying my rent on a lotto ticket. The multitude of things that determine both of those things are so numerous no important decision should be predicated on such factors.
I say this in as respectful a manner as I possibly can: this type of hypothesizing is exactly how transit advocates become a part of the problem instead of the solution.
No one is a psychic. No one should pretend to know what opportunities the next federal transportation authorization act will or won't create, or the one 6 years after that, or the one 6 years after that. Nor should anyone pretend to know what the MTA board make-up will be 10 years from now, or Measure R revenues or the state budget.
All I know is how to define what is needed on a corridor/in a region, explain why, and go out and advocate for it. Everything else to be quite frank, is predicated on a house of cards and can be as easily rebutted as supported.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 21, 2009 21:29:48 GMT -8
Consensus is a tricky thing, but I think it can be done here...or at least to please most parties.
Right now, the Wilshire Subway (and a Crenshaw/Wilshire subway connector) is in a much earlier phase of its studies than the Crenshaw LRT from the Green Line to the Expo Line--let's grab that lowest-hanging fruit and do that first!
By the time the dust settles and the smoke clears (in about five years), that Wilshire/Crenshaw LRT subway connector will be THE glaring gap in the rail map because Wilshire should be proceeding west to La Cienega/Fairfax and the Downtown Connector should be on its way to reality with federal funds.
...and THAT will be the time we'll have figured out where the two lines should intersect (and perhaps where the Crenshaw Line might intersect with the Red Line in Hollywood!)
...and THAT will be the time when the Wilshire Subway extension and Crenshaw Line will be fact, not science fiction, thereby enhancing political support for this north-south line.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 22, 2009 7:06:50 GMT -8
Consensus is a tricky thing, but I think it can be done here...or at least to please most parties. Right now, the Wilshire Subway (and a Crenshaw/Wilshire subway connector) is in a much earlier phase of its studies than the Crenshaw LRT from the Green Line to the Expo Line--let's grab that lowest-hanging fruit and do that first! Agreed! Agreed! Which is why we need to pay careful attention as advocates and to have a solid executed plan of battle and not go into something all hot and bothered without all the facts and realize after all the energy is expended that nothing got accomplished. Because nothing got accomplished the new help that would have come from the public to help the advocacy -grow stalls and fizzles- to the leaders/officials that we know what we are talking about and why something needs to happen in a certain way. That is what will set advocacy back.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 22, 2009 8:45:36 GMT -8
From having watched and participated in this process for 20 years now, I'd bet on that process (federal, state, and local) not changing very much.
It's like recent Metro board meetings. Imagine a huge lumbering machine, with members of different factions pushing as hard as they can to make it go in different directions. With the result of cancelling each other out and Metro continuing to lumber along in about the same direction as before.
The last big change was establishing the priorities of Eastside LRT, Expo LRT, and the Valley BRT in 2000-2001. Once those decisions were made they became orthodoxy that would not change. And those only happened because MTA was out of money in 1998 for Red Line subway extensions adopted a few years earlier.
Measure R was a game-changer as a funding source, but it basically codified existing priority projects in L.A. County. Even with that, the factions are so strong there's not yet a Metro board majority to pass the new LRTP, let alone a way to change those priorities.
Similarly there's so much pressure to preserve the existing federal funding structure that Obama is pushing to postpone the next bill for 18 months. As the previous Reauthorization was also deferred.
We have the most relevance and leverage as transit advocates by influencing the design of projects during their staff environmental process and adoption by the Metro board members.
As one could expect, the BRU "will definitely be at the hearings in support of BRT." But I doubt Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas - or any other Metro board members - will be very interested.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 1, 2009 4:03:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Oct 1, 2009 8:31:19 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.
I'm assuming with the second Green Line route north they are setting the stage for a future extension somewhere along the Westside (Sepulveda? Lincoln?)
It was also interesting to observe that the Crenshaw presentation had many more displays and handouts then I've seen at the Westside Subway presentations.
(And in case anyone from Metro is reading this - the Fellowship Hall at Wilshire United Methodist Church is convenient and spacious but the acoustics are terrible.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 1, 2009 10:01:02 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. I actually view this as a negative. Basically we are going to reduce service to LAX on the Green Line with this proposal. I think it is better to just have a north-south line (i.e. Crenshaw) and an east-west line (i.e. Green) with a transfer station between the two at Century/LAX. Of course, with my proposal, then people who currently use the Green Line for service to the South Bay stations will have to transfer, but there will be less of them with a Crenshaw Line as the new preferred route to downtown would be through Crenshaw and Expo for people starting their journeys in the South Bay. People going from Norwalk to Redondo would have to transfer though. However, this is far preferrable in my opinion to reducing headways for the key destination of the line which could really hurt ridership. Would they then rename the Green Line going to the South Bay branch as some other line like was done with the Purple Line, because in essence this would create two lines? I had first hand experience with this problem when the Hollywood branch of the Red Line opened. That forced reduced service to the current Purple Line terminus. The added headway time forced me to an all bus journey, since the subway no longer provided much time benefit to get out of downtown.
|
|