|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 30, 2008 15:43:56 GMT -8
Others can give you better details than I can, Roadtrainer...but the main reasons that 80/320 deal couldn't happen:
1) The project was more expensive than the numbers given, and the $320 million was an unlikely percentage of the project than has been funded in the past by the feds for other rail projects; those who keep pushing for the "80/320 no-brainer" should be brought to bear
2) The feds only fund one project at a time, so the desired matching funds for Expo (much more than $320 million) would have been threatened
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 30, 2008 18:56:37 GMT -8
;D to all concerned: I was hoping that in a tax increase everybody would be happy, The people of the Valley are put off by the people of the West side. Yet I can see why---people who live in the valley don't want all their tax dollars going to the west-side for construction of their rail-line and vise versa. Will not the 1/2 cent sales tax be evenly divided? or quartered? I still think the Metro should have committed 80 million and the Feds would have given 320 million I thought that was sweet deal. Can the committees of the SGV come up with the 80 million themselves or get investors to put up so their project could get the funding for Uncle Sam? Sincerely the Roadtrainer San Gabriel Valley Point of View: Give SGV $80 million and a guarantee of $8 million annually for rail operations and supposely SGV will get $320 million from FTA. Problem: Federal Transit Administration funds at 40-50%. Fact: 80% funding pitched by SGV Congress members hasn't happened in probably 20 years and isn't supported by any recent documentation. Problem: Metro estimates it will cost about $550 million to do this project as proposed. So, Metro has long proposed that the Expo Line Phase II be funded as a new start in 2009-10. FTA says: Sorry, we funded Foothill Gold Line this cycle for $320 million, there are no matching funds left for your region this cycle. Come back and ask in 2014. Where exactly is the tactical mistake in not giving the Gold Line Authority this $80 million? FTA Cycle Funding isn't secret. One project per region per cycle. Expo is under construction and with a Full Funding Grant agreement for the T-4 America cycle of 2009-2014, Expo is the next project in line. But would be bumped to the next cycle (2015-2021) for a much lower performing project. Now, of course I agree that the Gold Line should be built in between Expo I & II. Now if folks vote yes in November, there are funds to complete Expo and extend Foothill Gold to Citrus. However, most of the San Gabriel speakers at the Metro Board Meeting were saying they would not support the sales tax increase. Metro directors understand bait and switch all too well and won't take the risk. The San Gabriel folks also want to block Metro from receiving $213 million, while at the same time getting $80 million. That $213 million would be used for bus and Metrolink improvements going directly to the San Gabriel Valley. Again, where is the possibility that the Metro board made any type of tactical mistake? They protected Expo. I see the mistake of tactics would be giving in to the San Gabriel Valley, that at least has Metrolink and some Gold Line. Where is any rail at all in West LA? Deals that need to be made to fund both of these projects plus the Regional Connector should be a priority, when we can get all three jump started. For all that saw the bottleneck blog on Friday, it shows that the Mayor and Richard Katz had a very private session with the San Gabriel players. They all have to strike a deal, as they are the players and need to settle this unnecessary fight.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 20, 2008 11:43:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 3, 2008 8:03:26 GMT -8
According to the L.A. Times, Metro will be moving forward in the process with both the Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. extensions, with Wilshire having the higher priority.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 3, 2008 8:25:50 GMT -8
some one please go to one of these meetings and report back!
i cant make it with my metro commute
seems like there are some great ideas getting thrown around judging from the early info news reports.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 3, 2008 9:58:51 GMT -8
Just an idea I'm throwing out there open to any criticism. I just thought about tolling the Santa Monica Freeway after the subway is completed (or putting HOT lanes). Any tolls collected could be used to pay for the project (pay back loans) and it would encourage more people to use the subway to commute to work and would make TODs more viable. Good idea (although impossible right now because of laws about taking away mixed-flow lanes)?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 3, 2008 10:44:01 GMT -8
Just an idea I'm throwing out there open to any criticism. I just thought about tolling the Santa Monica Freeway after the subway is completed (or putting HOT lanes). Any tolls collected could be used to pay for the project (pay back loans) and it would encourage more people to use the subway to commute to work and would make TODs more viable. Good idea (although impossible right now because of laws about taking away mixed-flow lanes)? seems like an idea later on down the road. as, hopefully, there will be two lines serving this corridor. purple/pink/red line and expo line. i dont really see any reason to oppose that
|
|
norm
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by norm on Sept 5, 2008 10:26:59 GMT -8
For those wondering about the current round of meetings - I attended last night's Plummer Park meeting. I'm not the best at summing up, so feel free to drop questions.
As far as remaining alternatives, they have eliminated all routes except Alternatives 1 (Wilshire only) and 11 (combined Wilshire with West Hollywood branch to Hollywood/Highland). They are no longer studying a West Hollywood only branch. The cost of the Hollywood/Highland station changes plus a complete lack of rail yard (since it wouldn't have an interchange at Hollywood/Highland) would make the cost much higher than Wilshire, not to mention with less estimated ridership...as I understood it. They eliminated the Grove/Farmer's Market detour based on cost vs. ridership.
Obviously, the station locations at UCLA, Century City and WeHo are still up for debate, based on engineering and further studies.
As one would expect from a meeting in the heart of West Hollywood, the majority of the comments were supportive of the dual route - as well as a great deal of people who apparantly had missed the part in the presentation where they said they had eliminated a West Hollywood only route.
The MTA staff did a nice push for the sales tax while reminding the public that even if it passes, it will not fully fund the Westside extension (only 4.2 billion by 2013).
I left halfway through the commenting, so maybe someone else will correct me, but there were few people there to challenge the subway concept. There was the one crackpot who yelled a lot...as he did the time before, but no interruptions from the gallery.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 5, 2008 17:53:22 GMT -8
Thanks for that excellent summary, Norm!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 7, 2008 20:37:34 GMT -8
yes, thank you very much for the info you did post!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 8, 2008 9:58:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 8, 2008 13:32:50 GMT -8
It is my hope that Damien Goodmon will not relegate himself with his screaming to the low-credibility universe of John Walsh, but it's a free country. Credibility is something that does not grow on trees, and light rail is being planned for West L.A., the San Gabriel Valley and the South Bay/LAX regions. In a few years, we'll probably see more San Fernando Valley residents talking about changing the Orange Line to LRT.
I think that the Subway is very expensive, but at this immediate time I envision local support for the Subway (both a Purple and "Pink" Line) to be reaching a rather favorable crescendo that is overwhelming its once-numerous detractors.
I realize that this is a second-hand report, and cannot be taken as fact, but I suspect that the Westside will vote in very large numbers for Prop. R in support of the Wilshire Subway. Whether Prop. R fails or succeeds, support for the Subway is as large as I've seen it for the past 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 8, 2008 14:07:20 GMT -8
What the f*** is wrong with D. Goodman. This is getting ridiculous. I understand his concerns with the Expo Line, but stopping a subway along Wilshire is stupid any any other development. Finally, LA has a chance to build high density housing/jobs, and have strong economic prosperity. We cannot afford to waste not having a subway line in the Westside. We should not regulated to Phoenix, Alburquerquee, Cleveland - like development. We are a major world-class city that deserves development similar to London, New York, Chicago, etc...
|
|
kenny
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kenny on Sept 8, 2008 17:11:39 GMT -8
Looking at the Alternatives for the subway, I don't see why Metro doesn't connect the Hollywood/Highland station so there is no transfer required. Then they could have 3 subway lines, US to NoH, US to Santa Monica, and NoH to Santa Monica; the red, purple and new color lines.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 8, 2008 19:12:44 GMT -8
I don't see how those three lines would eliminate transfers. The stations between what would be the red and purple lines wouldn't have a transfer free ride to Union Station. And I imagine that the Union Station direction would be a bigger destination than Santa Monica of NoHo for those people. I think that having people from NoHo have a one seat ride to downtown and a transfer to Santa Monica makes the most sense. Then everyone would have a transfer free ride to downtown.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 8, 2008 22:27:19 GMT -8
Others can state this better than I can, and who have a better knowledge of the facts and engineering, but my understanding is that for a nontransfer Hollywood/Highland station for the "Pink" Line, we would need to actualy shut down the Red Line for awhile.
I don't envision that happening, but I again think that others know more about this than I do.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 9, 2008 4:17:48 GMT -8
Kym Richards said one of the other problems with a direct-running Pink Line is that the train runs would now be lopsided toward the Vermont/Hollywood route. This would also mean that service on both of those branches might dip to unacceptably low frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 9, 2008 11:09:32 GMT -8
Damien is becoming famous for his inability to control himself at a public meeting. Just like John Walsh, except that the latter has learned how to keep himself quiet while other people are talking.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 9, 2008 14:17:13 GMT -8
Operationally, it would make the most sense to have three types of trains: 1) Red Line: LAUS-North Hollywood 2) Purple Line: LAUS-Santa Monica 3) "Pink" Line: North Hollywood-Santa Monica
The entire subway system would function as a giant wye. Unfortunately, as has been said, the logistics of adding a junction to the existing Hollywood/Highland station don't appear to be feasible.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 9, 2008 21:08:26 GMT -8
See the result of the Alternatives Analysis study from the meeting presentation (PDF file). They are down to two alternatives: Wilshire only (Alternative 1) and Wilshire/Santa Monica combined (Alternative 11). I really hope that Alternative 11 (combined subway) gets the go from the Metro board. Although, neither alternative passes the FTA funding threshold, and there will be a need for a lot of state and local money. Approve the sales-tax measure!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 9, 2008 21:11:52 GMT -8
Although, neither alternative passes the FTA funding threshold, and there will be a need for a lot of state and local money. what do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 9, 2008 21:21:55 GMT -8
Although, neither alternative passes the FTA funding threshold, and there will be a need for a lot of state and local money. what do you mean? Well, see Page 23 of the presentation, which is the cost-effectiveness rating. Currently (They are still working on it to lower the cost-effectiveness figure!) the project is not within the desired cost-effectiveness range, which is the dollar per time savings. This is certainly not to mean that the project won't get federal funding, but it will be difficult to get federal funding against more cost-effective projects that fall within the target range, or even lower.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2008 8:31:50 GMT -8
Yes, yes, Damien will first stop the Expo Line and then the Red and Purple Lines.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Sept 10, 2008 19:58:11 GMT -8
I hope that our next President will not cave in to the Oil Lobbyists / Taxpayer Revolt crew and halt Federal funds from going to these projects.... that is alot of Billions of $$$, even a sales tax increase may not get it done. We need Federal matching funds.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 11, 2008 5:24:50 GMT -8
I think that even a McCain/Palin administration, as we're now seeing with a Bush/Cheney administration, will discover that Congress will regularly overrule any presidential veto of insufficient transportation funding.
I think that alternative fuels and the increased need to fund transportation projects will force Washington to find new ways to right-size transportation funding (i.e., from the general fund, which is what Bush has proposed after myriads of ways to spend the gas tax funds differently).
One alternative that no one has mentioned, but it might gain more political support (just as is the unpleasant but arguably-necessary domestic drilling option) is to open more quarries that are devoted solely to domestic transportation projects and dramatically reduce the costs of the projects already approved...and thereby allow more projects to be budgetted with what we currently fund.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 11, 2008 12:38:07 GMT -8
Hahahaha I can't stop laughing at this. Hahaha.
Someone tell this nut that the State of California might be getting a high speed train if voters approve a bond measure in November.
"YOU MEAN CALIFORNIA IS GETTING HIGH SPEED RAIL WHILE SOUTH LA GETS LIGHT RAIL?! HSR, consider yourself... terminated."
Serious post: Wilshire Blvd. is like an entire downtown spread out alongside a busy street. No right of way exists to take advantage of. The differences between Wilshire and Expo are vast. This guy really wants to be a politician doesn't he? He'd make a good one!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 11, 2008 14:23:38 GMT -8
Yesterday's event was uneventful, except for Mr. Walsh, whose wild gesticulations and accusations were just enough to wake up the sleepy crowd. (His anti-subway rant included a screed against the much feared RAINBOW CRIPS from West Hollywood!)
For the most part, I think people felt enthusiastic yet impotent. I mean obviously we need to rally for Measure R. But short of that passing, I'm not sure what else could be done to get us the subways.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 13, 2008 7:13:48 GMT -8
Serious post: Wilshire Blvd. is like an entire downtown spread out alongside a busy street. No right of way exists to take advantage of. Sort of like the Eastside Extension, eh? A serious issue has been put on the table. Why don't the people who were around when the Red Line extension to East LA was canceled speak up on this issue? [birds chiriping] Sorry to interrupt your rumor milling and innuendo with something logical. You may proceed to now talking about which office I'm running for.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Sept 13, 2008 10:02:47 GMT -8
damien, i thought the subway portion of the east side light rail was due to the narrowness of the streets in that region.
i also believe it to be a sort of olive branch to the community that was basically destroyed by a 7 sq mile interchange. though i have not seen that stated anywere
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 13, 2008 10:33:19 GMT -8
Granted I'm not aware of all your history, but it is obvious to me that you are each very intelligent and articulate people and as far as I can tell you guys want the same thing: The best possible transportation system. You just have different ideas as to what that entails. Your so passionate about it that you lower yourselves by the use of personal attacks. The irrelevant pot shots you make against each other lowers your clout and reduces the rest of what you are trying to say.
I encourage you before you post irrelevant personal attacks ask yourself, "What function does it serve?" Are you seeking to persuade or inform others to your point of view or to put them down? By putting them down how have you advanced your point of view and how can you be open to understanding the perspective of others.
It seems to me, you each want to make Los Angeles a better place to live. A step toward this goal far easier then building a first class transportation system is to be respectful of one another.
|
|