|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 16, 2008 11:27:17 GMT -8
Tony: I'm not shifting the subject, I think your just missing the point. The routing was determined by the right-of-way limitations. If the line were primarily subway, it would not have it's current route. The initial route or a comparable alternative would have been chosen. The existing route was chosen because of cost. Costs, which are suddenly of no concern now that the line is heading west. If cost were equally a concern down Wilshire as they are on the Eastside, we'd be talking about the Olympic light rail line, and improved Wilshire Rapid service. The eastside subway is as commendable a project as the westside subway. And the Eastside Light Rail is as insufficient a project as the Olympic light rail. This is roughly what the Red Line extension would have looked like. maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=100955506182745485749.0004429a286108d50498d&ll=34.04657,-118.216565&spn=0.057179,0.077248&t=k&z=14 It is not too far from the Gold Line route (except that the Gold Line is going deeper into East LA). So again, this is nothing like Wilshire.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 16, 2008 12:11:31 GMT -8
Tony, Unfortunately those who know the area best feel completely differently. Two of the stations are same but the stations to the east and west are not. You can't expect them to generate the same ridership as previous alignments. There are too many factors, including as stated previously, the forced transfer and slow street running, which impacts travel times. And again the real trip generators on Whittier Blvd are completely missed by the ESGL alignment. Some of the intended Whittier Blvd stations in the heart of East LA are 0.75 - 1 mile away from the ESGL stations, (which makes the point that Olympic light rail really isn't a good enough comparison in some portions, because it comes within a 0.5 mile of Wilshire. Maybe Pico is a better analogy in some locations.) Would you suggest the Beverly Hills Golden Triangle is served by a station at Pico/Beverly? Or that Westwood Village is served by a station at Santa Monica/Westwood? No credible person would. It's no more applicable there than it is in East LA. If real world analogies don't explain the points well enough to you, read up on transportation system modeling. Google will take you to plenty of interesting and thorough studies on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 16, 2008 12:15:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 16, 2008 12:28:12 GMT -8
Tony, Unfortunately those who know the area best feel completely differently. Two of the stations are same but the stations to the east and west are not. You can't expect them to generate the same ridership as previous alignments. There are too many factors, including as stated previously, the forced transfer and slow street running, which impacts travel times. And again the real trip generators on Whittier Blvd are completely missed by the ESGL alignment. Some of the intended Whittier Blvd stations in the heart of East LA are 0.75 - 1 mile away from the ESGL stations, (which makes the point that Olympic light rail really isn't a good enough comparison in some portions, because it comes within a 0.5 mile of Wilshire. Maybe Pico is a better analogy in some locations.) Would you suggest the Beverly Hills Golden Triangle is served by a station at Pico/Beverly? Or that Westwood Village is served by a station at Santa Monica/Westwood? No credible person would. It's no more applicable there than it is in East LA. If real world analogies don't explain the points well enough to you, read up on transportation system modeling. Google will take you to plenty of interesting and thorough studies on the topic. Damien, the Eastside Extension has more stations and roughly the same path. Btw, wouldn't the original Red Line extension have missed those same trip generators on Whittier? 16,000 is the ridership figure. Almost everyone here has been trying to tell you that the previous ridership projections were because of other lines that were supposed to be a part of the system and because of the transfer at Union Station (which would become almost irrelevant once the downtown connector is built). So if you build a subway, the numbers would not be much greater than 16,000 (in fact it may even be less because this extension goes further and has more stations, but that's speculation and not important for the point I'm making). If the option is between the original Red Line extension and Eastside Extension, I'll take the Eastside Extension. It can easily handle the 16,000 riders, it goes further than the Red Line Extension would have, and uses money much more efficiently. I've heard very high numbers for Wilshire. Upwards of 200,000 if built all the way to Santa Monica. The Red Line extension would have gotten at most 55,000 riders (and that's with all of those lines that will not be built in the near future). So again, how is this anything like Wilshire?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 16, 2008 16:48:16 GMT -8
1998: a) Wilshire subway is scrapped and replaced by an at-grade Expo b) Eastside subway is scrapped and replaced by an at-grade Eastside Gold Line extension More like: a) The not-on-Wilshire subway to Pico-San Vicente was replaced with Expo LRT and Wilshire BRT (including dedicated lanes in the future, unless a subway is built first), serving far more people. b) The Eastside subway to 1st & Lorena was replaced with Eastside LRT to 3rd & Atlantic, twice the distance. Tony has it right.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 16, 2008 21:56:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 16, 2008 22:22:04 GMT -8
I think a north-south line from the Valley past Westwood (crossing the Purple and Expo Lines) to LAX and the South Bay would be used by more people.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 16, 2008 22:30:13 GMT -8
b) The Eastside subway to 1st & Lorena was replaced with Eastside LRT to 3rd & Atlantic, twice the distance. It goes twice as far but not any where near as fast and now with a transfer when going from Red to Gold. The subway is like a sports car. Light Rail is like an economy car. Sometimes we just can't afford the sports car.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 16, 2008 23:45:18 GMT -8
So you'd rather have the original Red Line extension over the Gold Line extension because it's faster? The time it takes to travel the extension is 17 minutes. Speed is not a big issue here.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 17, 2008 1:44:18 GMT -8
I think if someone can point out that it goes twice as far. I can point out that it goes twice as slow. 28 MPH? (17 mins devided by 6 miles = 28 mph if my math is right) I tried doing a google search to find out what average automobile street speed is. I didn't find anything but I believe it's around 30 MPH. I surmise you will see cars passing this train.
For the amount of money we spent on the Red Line we could have had a lot more light rail track miles. However, light rail can not duplicate the Red Line's level of service.
So, would I prefer a shorter Red Line to a more extensive Light Rail network? Yes, I would. I believe we have a better system with it despite the cost difference between faster, more efficient subway to slower, lighter capacity, at grade light rail.
That's not to say LRT does not have it's place. I believe the two modes are appropriate in different circumstances and they compliment each other.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 17, 2008 5:15:43 GMT -8
With all due respect, folks, I think this is better continued on the Eastside LRT thread...but since I'm a man of action I can't help but wonder how helpful this argument is because what's done IS done!
Do we:
1) Build a LRT to Whittier, and then consider another LRT to serve the 60 Corridor?
2) Stop this project altogether, and/or make two Busways along those two corridors to connect to the Atlantic/Pomona terminus with roughly the same amount of $$$?
3) Start planning the next Eastside rail project to serve regions of the Eastside not served by this LRT line, and if so should it be another LRT or a direct Red/Purple HRT extension?
For better or for worse, this line is longer and will have the same LRT technology to connect with the Pasadena Gold Line, the Expo Line and the Blue Line once the Downtown Light Rail Connector is built, and it is my very strong contention that this Connector should be underground to be fast and enjoy short headways and lots of service.
But (and please reply on the Eastside thread) what route should be next?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 17, 2008 8:36:13 GMT -8
I think if someone can point out that it goes twice as far. I can point out that it goes twice as slow. 28 MPH? (17 mins devided by 6 miles = 28 mph if my math is right) I tried doing a google search to find out what average automobile street speed is. I didn't find anything but I believe it's around 30 MPH. I surmise you will see cars passing this train. It depends on where the train is going and the speed limit. If it's limited to 35 mph but is going with the flow of traffic with signal priority it runs just as fast as the auto traffic. I think in concept a lot of posters on this board will agree with you on that premise, depending on where that corridor goes and it's density and activity, it makes the most sense. But not all corridors need to have a subway to sustain a high level of service. No argument from me on that, I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 17, 2008 9:37:52 GMT -8
Jerard, As illustrated in my previous posts I completely understand that a project's ridership is predicated on route length, transfers and accessibility of points which is usually improved with fixed guideway projects. I'm stating that ridership projections and project analysis were made post the Red Line Eastside extension mid-90s EIRs and post Zev law that took into consideration the reduced connections/fewer projects, and they were higher than the 16K from the ESGL extension. If I recall correctly 55K was from the mid-90s EIR, and included the projects you mentioned, and 39-40K was the number post Zev's law. All of these numbers are horizon year riderships, not opening day numbers. Every project's ridership model includes those that are in the adopted and approved constrained plans. If a transportation agency can prove that they can pay for it to be built, and operate it they can take it into account in their ridership model. The regional ridership model includes projects that are in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, which are also in the MTA's Long Range Transportation Plan. Thus, Expo Phase 1's new 27K forecast number are based on a model that presumes that the projects in the 2001 LRTP constrained plan would be built including Expo Phase 2 and Crenshaw BRT/LRT. So the drop from 43 to 27K does not explain the drop in the HORIZON YEAR ridership projection for Phase 1 Expo. The text in the EIR page you post APPEARS TO however. (I appreciate you pointing it out as I'd never known prior to your post what the original model numbers were I just knew they were lower than 43K.) Simply, you misunderstood my post and you misunderstand the text from the EIR. To reiterate what I've said before, Metro's problem, or I should say ONE of Metro's problems with getting Expo Phase 1 through the New Starts were it's ridership model assumptions. Not just what they were including, but how much ridership they were considering it would yield. Now that Phase 2 has Expo back in the New Starts process, more accurate numbers are needed for Phase 1, so that accurate numbers can be calculated for Phase 2. They're not cutting the ridership estimates because they can't assume Phase 2 will be built. Quite the contrary. They're cutting them because the FTA is making them. Again this was explained in a June post regarding the February 2007 FTA letter to Senator Feinstein: In the Fall of 2004, FTA notified LACMTA that it appeared the majority of the project's forecasted travel time savings resulted from: 1) increases in bus speeds and timed transfers from feeder buses, and 2) the use of an asserted travel time benefit (modal constant) for high-income transit riders that did not benefit other transit riders. As a result of these assumptions, FTA believed that a large proportion of the project's benefits did not reflect the benefits of the proposed project, but resulted from the impacts of an improved feeder bus network for the light rail system. FTA requested that LACMTA correct these issues so that the travel forecasts would better reflect the benefits of the proposed light rail extension, and not the impact of feeder bus service and modal constant that benefits high-income transit riders.
At that time, LACMTA believed it would be too time consuming to recalibrate the regional model and re-code the bus feeder network. LACMTA decided to pursue the project without Section 5309 New Strts funding for the project, to expedite project implementation. FTA has not received revised forecasts for the Exposition Corridor project. Because LACMTA is not seeking Section 5309 New Starts funds for construction, the calculation of transportation system user benefits is not required because a rating for project justification is not required.
Finally, FTA has identified similar issues with travel demand models used by numerous projects throughout the U.S., so the LACMTA models do not have any more weaknesses than models used nationally.
However, for those projects seeking New Starts funds, FTA requires the forecasts to be representative of only the benefits of the project. Now read the text that you supplied: Earlier ridership estimates in the Draft EIR/EIS reported 27,200 fixed guideway boardings for the Mid-City/Exposition LRT to Venice/Robertson Boulevards. That's the part you have highlighted. First, keep in mind the Expo Draft EIR/EIS was released BEFORE the 2001 LRTP was adopted, so it likely included anything in the constrained LRTP/RTP that came BEFORE 2001, or more likely what came after the '98-00 shake-up and only that. Second, the part after the portion you highlighted explains the reduced ridership estimates for Phase 1 and is completely in line with the FTA's letter to Feinstein. Here's the portion after that which you highlighted: These estimates were generated from the Metro travel demand model, using a minimal feeder bus network and no rapid bus service beyond the two rapid bus lines that were being demonstrated at that time (on Wilshire Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard). The updated transportation model runs provide an upper limit to the estimated ridership, so that daily fixed guideway boardings are anticipated to be in the range of 27,200 to 43,600.
It should be noted that since daily transit trips, daily transit boardings and daily bus boardings are all systemwide statistics, changes due to the Project appear minimal. That was in 2004/2005 Expo FEIR/FEIS. Fast forward to 2008, and Metro now has, (and you can confirm), an updated model that they have run for Phase 2 New Starts, predicated on an assumption that the projects in the 2001 LRTP constrained plan (again Expo LRT to Santa Monica and Crenshaw LRT/BRT) will be built. The model likely includes all those in the 2008 SCAG RTP. And this model shows fewer riders than the previous model that 3-4 years prior didn't even take into account the Rapid bus feeder network currently in place.I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying, as I've said in the past: a) Metro doesn't know how to plan regionally or even conduct a good EIR/EIS b) Metro doesn't know to model correctly c) a & b are primarily why Metro has problems getting money from the feds not all the other excuses I hear on the net and from Thorpe and what not. Tony, As I alluded to in my first post in response to you in this topic, attempting to argue that the Eastside Red Line extension that actually hits the major activity centers under Whittier would not justify the cost of subway is quite frankly, laughable to anyone that knows the area or the existing transit ridership and transit dependent population. Really, if I'm being blunt, anyone who does not understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that the Whittier Blvd destination centers could be served with a line down 3rd Street probably shouldn't be commenting on this topic. Here was your post: I've explained over multiple posts, provided examples, encouraged you to use the internet to read studies about modeling, and still you seem intent on arguing the point. If I've misinterpreted your posts, please correct me. If you're not arguing that the routing under the Eastside either the initial one or one of those suggested that serves Whittier Blvd doesn't have the ridership to justify the cost of subway, then just what are you arguing? And no Metro's ridership projections for the 13-mile extension are in the 61.5K range, not 200K. Please just do basic research, go to the Metro website and look at slides 17 & 20 of the most recent presentation. If you want to argue a ridiculous point: that the Eastside line wouldn't justify the cost of subway based on ridership, but Wilshire could not handle LRT, we can go ahead and debate that. MTA's recent numbers of a full Expo with Phase 2 is 15 miles at 62K riders, which equals 4.1K riders per mile. Wilshire Extension without a transfer is 61.5K over 13 miles, which equals 4.7K riders per mile. Not a whole lot of difference there is it? Now consider: 1) With a required transfer from the Purple Line to LRT, the 61.5K ridership figure is expected to drop. (Just as ESGL requires a transfer from Red Line to Gold Line, and as we've all talked about ad nauseum.)2) If the line were under Olympic or Pico it is sure to drop even more. (just as ESGL serves 3rd St instead of Whittier, and as we've all talked about ad nauseum)So to answer a ridiculous hypothetical, based on Metro's numbers, yes, the expected ridership from a Westside extension can be accommodated with LRT on Wilshire or Pico/Olympic. So in the spirit of building projects at-grade in high-density areas, with existing street congestion and that worsen street traffic, lack the speed and capacity to generate the ridership that justify the capital and maintenance costs, miss major destinations, are built longer and inadequately rather than shorter and good, and get involved in accidents on a regular basis and lead to deaths that would be prevented with grade separation, Tony are you going to step up to the plate and lead the "Friends of the Primarily At-Grade Pico/Olympic LRT to the Sea" (FPAGPOLS for short)?Heck, we could have it operational years sooner than a subway extension under Wilshire, right? It would be much cheaper, right? At-grade down Olympic based of Expo Phase 1 numbers would cost what $1.4-1.5 billlion? Compared that to $6.1 billion! And we could even shave some money off the cost if we go across major intersections like Western, Normandie, Crenshaw, Westwood and Sepulveda at-grade. Lets not worry about solving our traffic problem, we just want to give people options, right? And worsening traffic is good, right Tony? Maybe you have just completely missed the point that I firmly believe, and what many here used to firmly believe: after the Eastside Extension is built there's nothing that can be done to solve so many of problems it will create. You can always extend a subway line, in time. You cannot bring back lanes that have been eliminated to make the railroad right-of-way, or open streets that have been closed to fit the platforms, or bring back from the dead people that have been killed. (I say " used to firmly believe" because when an organization came around that actually tried to confront this problem so many here began to change their tune on the importance of building projects grade separated that serve long-term needs.) And if we want to compare the benefits of building projects that are less costly and serve fewer people but are longer than building good projects that are shorter, a lot of people need to change their tune regarding the anti-BRT rhetoric. There's a whole lot of inconsistency around here brother. For a person like yourself, who believes that increasing traffic in a poly-nucleic dispersed city with the worst traffic in the country, I understand the gulf between us regarding the concern about worsening overall traveling speeds in the area. You think that's a solution, not a problem. It's fine for you and others to think that. But you'd never be able to defend such a thesis in any academic setting in this world. For people who think LRT is just a really good excuse for increased and more dense development (whether or not the people who live/work in them actually take the train), it's understandable why one would spin this issue like a top. And for people who think that the only people who get hit by trains deserve it and that there's no adverse environmental impact from at-grade rail, it's easy to understand why they'd be confused when one mentions environmental justice when discussing the board process/policies that led to one side of town getting LRT, while the other side of town gets a gold-platted subway...and not just one but TWO. But those with differing views from the three sets of people above, this is not at all difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 17, 2008 10:38:04 GMT -8
I think if someone can point out that it goes twice as far. I can point out that it goes twice as slow. 28 MPH? (17 mins devided by 6 miles = 28 mph if my math is right) It's actually 21 traveled miles per hour: 6 * (60/17) = 21 mph Which is somewhat faster than the national average for at-grade light rail because of the two grade separated portions (Union Station to Little Tokyo and the 1st Street tunnel). Are you sure about the 17 min figure? I thought the the travel time was slower than 21 mph, but I might be mistaken. Well that's not going to give you the full picture. A commuter's Eastside LRT total trip time includes: a) the commute from the departure location to the station, which includes a walk, bike or bus trip. (The further away from high density areas and major destinations the more likely this is to have an impact) b) the time on the vehicle c) the commute to the destination, which includes a walk, bike or bus trip. (Again, the further away from high density areas and major destinations the longer the time.) Understand, the further a guideway is away from the major destinations the more important it becomes to make up the commute time in a and c with b. In other words the train needs to fly between stations. If the Wilshire extension were simply built as LRT for cost reasons, we would not be discussing this, or we would be discussing a waste of taxpayers resources ripping out the LRT to replace it with a Wilshire subway extension. Yet because we didn't, here we are 8 years after the Red Line construction ended considering a Wilshire subway extension. It's the issue of building for the long-term and keeping in mind these are 100 year projects, and that eventually a major funding mechanism will come about to build the more expensive but much better projects, like Prop 1B and Measure R. Understand, I believe in light rail vehicles because of their flexibility. It's the at-grade alignment in the congested urban core of the traffic capital of the country that I - and many others - have a problem with. A hybrid type system is what I think we need. If starting from scratch, I'd suggest we use slight bigger LRT vehicles (there are some subways in Euro cities that use cars the same or smaller than our LRVs) and operate those across the entire network so we'd have "one mode" throughout the region and permit interlining. But here's the big point: many light rail projects only gets on the drawing board because at-grade LRT is falsely claimed to perform similarly or the same at a much cheaper price. If the true cost and impacts of at-grade light rail were known up front it would never get off the drawing board.Again, using an example of which I am most familiar and basing numbers off of (the recent Eastside tunneling project), if Expo Phase 1 were being built totally grade separated from Washington/Flower to Culver City it would be just slightly more than the current $864 million budget, in the range of $1-1.1 billion. (The $1-1.1 billion cost is DIFFERENT from that, which would be needed to modify designs in mid-stream.) If the discussion is $864 million dollar primarily at-grade LRT with all the impacts, hazards, risk, lost potential ridership, lost capacity for spur lines, traffic impacts, community opposition, etc. vs. the $1-1.1 billion grade separated project, the decision is a no-brainer. You go with the grade separated option. But despite the fact that people knew better, Expo was sold as a $600 million dollar project from LA to Santa Monica. Then it was a $400 million dollar project to Culver City. Then a $500 million dollar project to Culver City. Then a $640 million dollar project to Culver City. Now it's a $864 million dollar project to Culver City, and still counting... Also, the project begins to be sold as "taking cars off the freeway" and morphs into "giving people options." It goes from being a 22 min trip to a 26-29 min trip. So when the choice is $400 million that will take cars off the freeway vs. $1 billion that does the same just a few mins faster - it becomes a lot more difficult to justify the grade separated option. It's only when we're honest up front about the impacts, cost, benefits and drawbacks that the grade separated option has a fighting change. The second part of this is that in tunneling construction their is great savings in economy of scale. Subway has a lot of constant cost - upfront costs that are required at start-up. When you get rolling it's really not that much more expensive, comparatively speaking. So using the same technology and contracts, a 2 mile subway is $300 million ($150 mil a mile), while a 5 mile subway is $500 million ($100 mil a mile). There's primarily at-grade LRT and then there's grade separated LRT. If you're talking at-grade LRT the trick is in finding out where those places are. Both in terms of corridor and region. I argue you'd be hard pressed to find one south of the SM Mountains, north of the 105 freeway and west of Atlantic Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 17, 2008 12:57:45 GMT -8
My answer is B, they don't know how to model for the Feds.
That's interesting because with the EIR's some of which are posted here and how they are modeling they are looking at a bigger system.
The problem arises when they try selling that system to the Feds because all the Feds care about is that individual line in conjunction with what's currently there. I came across an EIR for Salt Lake City Trax (a subtle piece of Irony) and their ridership modeling is strictly on the line itself, however it gives reference to the what they are locally funding and under construction so that the Feds have an idea of what to shoot for as a grant value.
When an individual line goes over the 50% threshold chances are they have banked previously built local lines/projects and use that infrastructure commitment as a match for FTA New starts. This is not a blanket statement but looking at the projects that received the higher matches like the Portland's Interstate Max. They received a higher FTA percentage because they built their extension to the Airport, with all local funding through some Public-Private Partnership ventures and used that value $120 million as an add on to the grant for Interstate MAX and given Portland's successful track record on FTA New Starts they recieved that additional commitment.
That is what the SG Valley is suggesting for the Foothill Extension to at least Azusa/Citrus College.
If I recall there were three: Semi-exclusive at-grade LRT (Think streetcar) Exclusive LRT, flexible in alignment (at-grade, aerial, tunnels) Grade Separated LRT (in concept think Monorail)
Damien, there's more than one way to solve our transit problems for both short and long term in a Poly Centric region like LA ( I think I've used it a number of times on many discussion boards), Solving it with just only fully grade separated rail doesn't explain the politics of funding said Poly Centric regional rail system, nor does it explain the still requirement of excessive auto trips between outlying destinations. Nor does it explain that planning and zoning in relation to the transit has to match in order for it to work. Explain to those folks who want Expo to be a tunnel how they'd have to give up their property because the zoning of the area will drastically change.
Finally, please stop with the arrogant condesention, you're not a member of AIA or APA, in fact you're not even regurgitating the correct contextual information, you're just trying to sound important, and enough is enough.
To answer that question;
East-West corridors * Culver Blvd * Manchester/Firestone * Slauson/Randolph St * Soto Street/Mission Road/Huntington Drive * Colorado Blvd between Glendale and Pasadena * 3rd Street (Streetcar)
North-South Corridors * Broadway * Glendale Blvd * Pacific Blvd/Long Beach Blvd.
Wild Cards corridors * San Vicente (West Hollywood to Mid-City) * San Vicente (Santa Monica to Brentwood/Wilshire Blvd)
What is the contract for the stations between the bored tunnels? That has to be included in the project costs for the entire project. What happens when the stations are spaced a mile apart? 0.5 miles apart? 0.25 miles apart? 2.0 miles apart?
Let's look at this with the context behind those figures, of course any tunneling project where the only responsiblity is to bore the tubes will be a relatively small inexpensive contract compared to the rest of the work.
It's when more pieces are added is when the costs go up. A few years ago there was a 10 mile ECIS sewer done for $50-60 million dollars. All that project had to do was bore a tube for sewage and line it with large PVC shell. This sewer didn't include fire sprinkler systems, electrical propultion work, track work, HVAC, station, lighting fixtures and installation, concrete/rebar and station design and materials.
All of these factors effects how much the entire project will cost.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 18, 2008 7:17:41 GMT -8
What is the contract for the stations between the bored tunnels? That has to be included in the project costs for the entire project. What happens when the stations are spaced a mile apart? 0.5 miles apart? 0.25 miles apart? 2.0 miles apart? It's assuming stations spaced a mile apart - the standard in our region. Eastside stations were $35 and $40 mil respectively, which are significantly less than the Red Line stations.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 18, 2008 8:36:05 GMT -8
dont forget mid vent points like on the red line between noho and universal
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 18, 2008 12:14:53 GMT -8
Now that everyone has huffed and puffed, here are the two statements which were delivered to the Board of Supervisors and the op-ed in the LA Business Journal: Board of Supervisor's Statement July 15, 2008: Good afternoon Madam Chair. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and on a personal note state that despite our differences, in your capacity as chair of the Expo Authority you were always respectful and engaging, and it was appreciated.
My name is Damien Goodmon and I am the coordinator of the Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line – a collaboration of 18 homeowners associations, block clubs and community based organizations working for grade separations on the funded Expo Line Phase 1 - additional life saving, community enhancing, traffic mitigating grade separation. I come to speak about the 1/2-cent sales tax and the Wilshire subway extension proposal.
At last month’s MTA meeting a passionate and needed debate about discrepancies in how rail projects are built occurred focusing on the Wilshire subway extension. Although, as great as the discussion was, it seemed that some had forgotten that we'd likely have a Wilshire Line to the sea today - only it would not be a subway - it would be elevated.
Yes you can fit elevated tracks down Wilshire and even make a turn at Century City and in the ‘90s it would have been cheaper than subway. The elevated would be aesthetically disruptive, noisy, ruin the character of that community and you'd have to take a few feet from the wide Wilshire sidewalks to fit the columns. You'd basically have to inflict some of the adverse impacts that you're imposing on South LA and East LA with the Expo Line and Eastside Extension, on the communities of Hancock Park, the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.
You see the MTA explored the elevated option after the '98 tunneling ban was passed, but per MTA’s own staff reports evaluation of that option was discontinued, primarily because of community opposition. So MTA instead decided it would resurrect the Expo Line through South LA where at the time the community was less organized and has always been less powerful, and just to add insult to injury the Expo Line would impose upon South LA the safety hazards of at-grade crossings - almost all without crossing gates like Western Ave which is adjacent to 3500 student Foshay Learning Center.
Given that Phase 1 of the Expo Line was the replacement for aerial Wilshire Line down Hancock Park and Beverly Hills, and given that you chose to not invest in a full subway to the Eastside, I come to caution this board to make wise decisions when discussing a potential half cent sales tax measure that resurrects a subway for the Westside, now that South LA and East LA are to accept at-grade rail.
Madam Chair as you of all people know, environmental justice laws exist to prevent exactly this type of institutional discrimination. Sad as it is to admit Madam Chair, the legislature and Congress expect leadership from black and brown and poorer communities to be less capable in defending their interests.
So what’s the solution – how can you build the Wilshire subway extension and comply with environmental justice laws. I believe it is two prong:
1) Adopt as a policy that East LA be actually be given it’s cancelled Whittier Blvd subway if the Westside is to be given one. The current Eastside light rail extension does not serve the heart of the East LA corridor: Whittier Blvd. As you see in the documents before by simply using the existing Red Line tracks that parallel the LA River you can connect Olympic/Soto – where massive redevelopment activities are planned and the Whittier Corridor to the Wilshire Line. Phase 1 could go to Whittier/Atlantic. Phase 2 eventually to the Whittier Quad would actually be exactly the same distance as the Subway to the Sea.
2) As the Fix Expo Campaign has been professionally and passionately been requesting build what you can within the existing EIR and take another look at the portion in dispute. All you need to do is extend the trench 0.3 miles to Vermont, and begin operations to Vermont on time, while you begin restudying grade-separated options for the 4 miles from Vermont to La Brea. As you see in the documents before you, the option to extend it just 0.1 mile from Vermont has already been cleared. It is the extended under-crossing option that was not adopted because at the time was considered too expensive. But it would be no where near as expensive today because the utilities that were assumed would need to be gone around are being moved – the trench to Vermont can be shallower and the fraction of the then expected cost.
You have the time. You have the options. Do you have the will? Or will you proceed on your current path, ignore the will of your constituents and jeopardize billions upon billions and a necessary Wilshire rail line to the westside? Board of Supervisor's Statement August 5, 2008: Much discussion about this sales tax measure has focused on the future of Los Angeles, but lets look at the past.
In 1998 led by their politician Zev Yarslovsky, the Westside spearheaded the death of the Red Line subway extension to the sea, and in the processes took away East LA's subway forcing them to accept a primarily street-level light rail line and all the safety hazards and adverse impacts associated with it.
After the ’98 ban on using local money for subways passed, discussion of an elevated Wilshire extension ended almost immediately due to the Wilshire corridor community’s refusal to accept the aesthetic and noise impacts of an elevated Wilshire line. Thus, as a replacement to the Wilshire extension, the Expo Line was resurrected to go through the black and brown communities of South LA not as a subway or even elevated - but at street-level, 35 & 55 mph within a stones throw of several schools namely, Foshay Learning Center at Western Ave and Dorsey HS at Farmdale Avenue.
In January of 2008, after decades of requests, the South LA concerns at the Dorsey HS crossing were heard and Council Member Herb Wesson introduced a motion at the Expo Line Board meeting that would have removed the PUC street-level crossing application at Farmdale, which is within 10 feet of Dorsey HS where 700 students chaotically walk across the tracks in a matter of just 15 mins. after school, and replaced it with a grade separated option, either a street closure with a pedestrian bridge, a train overpass or train underpass.
The only impediment was time; the 3 options would result in a delay of a matter of months for a project that will operate for the next 100 years.
At that January Expo Authority meeting, after a half-hour to hour closed-door session by the Expo Authority board, which includes Supervisors Yarslovsky and Burke, the decision was deferred until the February meeting.
One major event happened after that meeting and before the February meeting when the decision was finally made: Westside interests groups came together to discuss the Subway to the Sea and other Westside rail project priorities and their star speaker was their politician Zev Yarslovsky. In the January 14, LA CityBeat article Yarslovsky was quoted as telling this Westside group regarding the Expo Line: "There’s a controversy that has erupted on one intersection of that line that threatens to tube the whole line."
How changing one intersection on the Expo Line threatens the line, Yarslovsky has never explained.
Yarslovsky then went on to tell this Westside coalition: "If the coalition has any value, it’s principle value is to give the elected officials, who are the ultimate decision makers in this, the cover, the backbone, the safety net."
So it was no surprise to me that at the February Expo Board meeting in this very hall, representatives of those Westside interests groups, people who have probably driven east of La Cienega with their windows down, came to this same microphone one after another stating their opposition to any change - ANYTHING - other than an at-grade crossing at Farmdale.
And so now today, after the MTA board which each of you sit on, has passed up on numerous opportunities to fund a grade separation at Dorsey HS, after you've approved a project where you're spending more money in the 1 mile from La Cienega to Robertson than in the 4.5 miles in South LA from Vermont to Clyde you want to increase South LA’s taxes for a subway under Wilshire.
After Westside mistakes and politicians forced East LA to accept at-grade rail, forced South LA to accept at-grade rail, and muddled South LA's attempts to grade separate Farmdale, you want us to increase our taxes to pay for a subway under your community Supervisor Yarslovsky of Miracle Mile, Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 18, 2008 12:21:13 GMT -8
LA Business Journal Op-Ed: Street-Level Debacle
MTA expects South L.A. to bear the burden of proposed Expo Line and its dangerous above-ground trains. By DAMIEN GOODMON
In his effort to build the Wilshire subway western extension to Santa Monica, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, has proposed increasing the regressive sales tax in the face of an economic downturn that is hitting the vulnerable taxpayers, consumers and businesses of South Los Angeles the hardest.
The mayor’s request for sacrifice from his South L.A. constituents for the Subway to the Sea is audacious given his unresponsiveness to the large South L.A. coalition requesting equal investment and equal treatment from the MTA regarding Phase 1 of the Expo Light Rail Line.
As it traverses from downtown L.A. to Culver City, the 8.5-mile Expo Line is proposed to slice across nearly all intersections in South L.A. at street level 240 times a day. In addition to the adverse traffic impacts, noise pollution and other environmental concerns, the street-level design poses a significant safety hazard, with 225-ton trains planned to operate at speeds up to 35 and 55 miles an hour. At Vermont, Normandie, Western and Crenshaw, which abut large urban schools, parks and places of worship, crossing gates aren’t even proposed. Twenty one of the 27 proposed street-level crossings have no gates.
This design has proved to be unsafe, evidenced by the accident record of the MTA’s Blue Line, which en route to Long Beach from downtown L.A. carves through the communities of South L.A., Watts, Willowbrook and Compton, and is the deadliest light rail line in the country with 818 accidents and 90 deaths.
The Expo Line’s close proximity to more than a dozen schools, in particular the 2,100-student Dorsey High School (which would be 10 feet from the tracks) and 3,500-student Foshay Learning Center (50 feet from the tracks), has prompted resolutions opposing all or portions of the street-level design from United Teachers Los Angeles and LAUSD Parent Collaborative, and legal action by the LAUSD Board of Education. All are concerned that children will be lost, such as 14-year-old Lavert Baker Jr., who never made it home from school last year because he was killed by a Blue Line train that was carrying his sister. Lavert is one of more than a dozen youths and young adults who have met similar unfortunate fates on the tracks of MTA trains.
Throughout the planning stages of the Expo Line, all parents, teachers and residents expressed concerns about the safety and environmental impacts of the street-level design – in South L.A. and in Culver City. The Culver City City Council heard the voices of its constituents and responded by passing motions prohibiting the street-level crossings the MTA had originally planned for their city.
Recognizing the power of a municipality, MTA bowed to Culver City’s demands, adding very costly overpasses, realigning National Boulevard and shifting a station platform so that Phase 1 of the Expo Line would not have any street-level crossings west of La Cienega Boulevard. The result is a 100-year project that west of La Cienega requires no child to walk across tracks, gridlocks no traffic, delays no emergency services, and inflicts no noise pollution, while imposing all of these burdens and more east of La Cienega in South L.A.
This discrepancy is perhaps best illustrated by the vast disparity in the amount of tax dollars MTA is spending for the one mile of the Expo Line from La Cienega to the Robertson Boulevard terminus in Culver City ($185 million for the one mile) compared with the 4.5 miles in South L.A. (just $31 million per mile, for a total of $140 million).
South L.A. paid its taxes for Phase 1 of the Expo Line: $35 million from the city of L.A. versus just $4 million from Culver City. Yet, we’re receiving a substantially lower return, and expected to bear greater hardship, including the ultimate calamities – the loss of life and limb.
Shared tax burdens should result in shared benefits. Thus, if the MTA and mayor hear the concerns of South L.A. and invest in life-saving and community-preserving grade separations, particularly near our schools, we’re prepared to support his sales tax hike. But expecting South L.A. taxpayers to accept the street-level Expo Line design, while forcing us to pay for a subway under Hancock Park, Beverly Hills and Century City, is simply adding insult to injury and furthering MTA’s discriminatory tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 18, 2008 12:28:52 GMT -8
Oh my goodness, it's the rallying cry of the BRU. Never mind the density of the westside, only the rich white people are getting subways. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 18, 2008 12:59:07 GMT -8
Yeah, all the Hispanic people who ride the 720 and 20 won't use the subway under Wilshire. Rich, white subway
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2008 13:17:10 GMT -8
In his effort to build the Wilshire subway western extension to Santa Monica, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, has proposed increasing the regressive sales tax in the face of an economic downturn that is hitting the vulnerable taxpayers, consumers and businesses of South Los Angeles the hardest. Since when have you joined the ultrarightmostwing of Republican Party, Damien? Are you campaigning for McCain? Also please correct your facts: The money for the Culver City overpass came mostly from the state, not the City of LA. Even if it came from the local funds, it would be the County of LA in general, not City of LA. And not to mention that grade separation in Culver City is no brainer, Venice/Robertson being the intersection with the highest traffic counts along the route.
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on Sept 18, 2008 13:46:34 GMT -8
All I can say is, if the possibility of more transit options in LA will only cost me an average of about $25 annually, I'm fully prepared and willing to take one on the chin from those evil politicians!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 18, 2008 14:49:47 GMT -8
From the Los Angeles Business Journal, 8/25/08 ( direct link $) Running With Light Rail Pasadena Gold Line shows MTA’s street-level transit can be pulled off safely and cost-effectively.
By DARRELL CLARKE
The Expo Line light rail from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica will finally provide a fast, convenient alternative to horrible traffic along the jammed I-10 corridor. It will benefit not only the commuters to downtown Los Angeles, but the growing “reverse” commuters to Westside jobs in Culver City, West Los Angeles and Santa Monica.
Phase 1 from downtown to Culver City received final approval from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 2005 and is well under construction. It is scheduled to open in 2010. Phase 2, which will run the rest of the way to Santa Monica, will follow in about 2015. It is Metro’s top-priority next project, and it is now undergoing environmental study.
A major part of Metro’s 2001 decision to go forward with light rail for the Expo Line was the outpouring of support and endorsements from those who live and work along the corridor. I’m active in Friends 4 Expo Transit, a group of volunteers that has been supporting the Expo Line since 2000.
We want the kind of rail service that many other cities enjoy in Los Angeles west of downtown.
Functional, flexible
The editorial in the July 28 issue of the Business Journal (headlined “Street-Level Debacle”) that criticized the Expo Line for its street-level design displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what light rail is. The standard for light rail is mostly “at-grade” – cost-effectively at ground level along private railroad rights-of-way with gated crossings or in boulevard medians under signal control – with the flexibility to bridge over or under when needed for heavy traffic or lack of space.
Recently built examples of street-level light-rail lines include the Pasadena Gold Line, just celebrating its fifth anniversary; the Eastside Gold Line, scheduled to open next year; and lines in Portland, Ore.; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Minneapolis; and Houston.
Only a half-mile of the line is in Culver City. The one street crossing there, the intersection of Washington and National boulevards, must be aerial because of the adjacent aerial crossing of busy Venice Boulevard. Similar bridges over busy La Cienega Boulevard and La Brea Avenue will be in Los Angeles.
Phase 2 of the line to Santa Monica will be much like Phase 1. In fact, the city of Santa Monica requested the line stay at-grade along the median of Colorado Boulevard into downtown because it would better fit the city. City officials said at-grade light-rail corridors provide greater opportunities for retail businesses, and enhance pedestrian environments and walkable connections to the neighborhoods.
Safety is very important, and the excellent record of the Pasadena Gold Line demonstrates the effectiveness of current standards. Also, note that crossing trains stop traffic far less than a typical traffic signal that turns red once every minute – 1,440 times per day.
Mobility is critical for the successful future of the business community in Los Angeles, and the Expo Line is a vital next step.
Darrell Clarke is co-chairman of Friends 4 Expo Transit.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 18, 2008 21:47:41 GMT -8
No, Dane, you didn't say it right. It's those eeeeeeeeeeeevil politicians.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 19, 2008 0:38:35 GMT -8
I'm no expert and i dont live in this neighborhood.
But seriuosly some of you for at rail folks are dense, I can understand being a rail afficionado and expanding our transportation system. I'm for it. But don't be fanatical about it.
Damien comes on here posts logical arguments. about the sales tax. Its like a landlord asking renter to pay more rent a month and you'll just patch up the holes on the roof with tar because its still rain resistant completely ignoring that its still going to leak in the future. but you'll completely replace your other apartments roof because its in a nicer neighborhood that has more affluent renters who can afford the lawyers that will take you to court if you dont.
Lets go ahead and demonize a guy who is asking to fix an issue after the community came to him and made him aware of it.
Its very frustrating to read through these threads and see the same verbal garbage being spewed about Damiens intentions and rebuttals to what he posts. That have nothing to do with the topic. I don't agree with everything he says but the guy made a point to a simpleton like me.
The guy has the guts to stand up for a community and you label him a republican? Instead of bashing the guy Have any of you met Damien personally and actually sat down and talked about this and come up with a solution?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 19, 2008 5:22:03 GMT -8
Considering that one never knows where one might find a Republican (it's legal and not supposed to be a pejorative term, last I checked) on the side of transit, I suppose that that label, and hooligan's reference to that label, is a bit off-topic?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 19, 2008 5:55:03 GMT -8
I'm no expert and i dont live in this neighborhood. But seriuosly some of you for at rail folks are dense, I can understand being a rail afficionado and expanding our transportation system. I'm for it. But don't be fanatical about it. Damien comes on here posts logical arguments. about the sales tax. Its like a landlord asking renter to pay more rent a month and you'll just patch up the holes on the roof with tar because its still rain resistant completely ignoring that its still going to leak in the future. but you'll completely replace your other apartments roof because its in a nicer neighborhood that has more affluent renters who can afford the lawyers that will take you to court if you dont. Lets go ahead and demonize a guy who is asking to fix an issue after the community came to him and made him aware of it. Its very frustrating to read through these threads and see the same verbal garbage being spewed about Damiens intentions and rebuttals to what he posts. That have nothing to do with the topic. I don't agree with everything he says but the guy made a point to a simpleton like me. The guy has the guts to stand up for a community and you label him a republican? Instead of bashing the guy Have any of you met Damien personally and actually sat down and talked about this and come up with a solution? there is no excuse to try to kill the sales tax initiative. there is no way i can support that move
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 19, 2008 7:35:48 GMT -8
Considering that one never knows where one might find a Republican (it's legal and not supposed to be a pejorative term, last I checked) on the side of transit, I suppose that that label, and hooligan's reference to that label, is a bit off-topic? I'm probably about as close to a Republican that you'll find on this board. And I have a feeling that hooligan came in reading these threads already biased toward grade-separated rail and didn't even try to see what we're saying with the advantages of at-grade rail.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 19, 2008 7:50:41 GMT -8
Damien, can you explain this dichotomy? The Crenshaw Corridor's $1.3 billion mixed in with the Expo investment is a considerable amount given the lack of job density compared to the Wilshire Corridor. So really? The Wilshire Corridor is getting preferential treatment and this is environmental racism?
|
|