|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 6, 2014 12:42:33 GMT -8
The problem also applies to the idea of building Concept 2 and then saving up for a Metro rail tunnel. Even if we assume that the 405 HOT lanes bring in TWICE what the 110/10 lanes bring in now, it would still take over 300 years to afford the rail runnel... Concept 2 honestly seems to have more flaws than Concept 1. Concept 1 will run in the right-hand shoulders of the roadway, will not require much additional infrastructure, and basically amounts to resurfacing and re-striping the 405 shoulders. Which is already happening thanks to the construction. Concept 2 requires building flyover ramps to the HOV lanes, then running the buses in mixed-flow with HOV traffic (which is already bogged down). It's basically a more expensive, more limited version of the service that we could get with Concept 1. The only flaw with Concept 1 is dealing with crossing traffic at onramps, but that could be handled by giving buses an override at the metering signals. Essentially, Concept 1 would be "proof of ridership" for a direct Sylmar-LAX line. It's inexpensive, it'll be faster than any current route to LAX, and it doubles as a rapidway for the LAX Flyaway to use. Of course there's no hope that it will pay for a LRT line - it only has to cover its own costs and prove the concept works. Then we can start working on LRT to supplement it. Concept 1 is essentially the proposed Metro 588 Express. thesource.metro.net/2014/02/10/a-look-at-proposed-bus-service-changes-that-would-better-connect-the-san-fernando-valley-and-the-westside/ |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Mar 6, 2014 13:11:08 GMT -8
588 Express is not a BRT. The only thing Concept 1 has in common with the 588 Express is its routing. - 588 Express would have to merge onto the already crowded freeway and cut across to the (also probably crowded) HOV lanes. (This is similar to Concept 2, except that Concept 2 would use a flyover to connect to the HOV lanes, where the buses would then get stuck in shared traffic. Oops.)
- Concept 1 would simply go straight from the onramp to a dedicated shoulder bus lane.
- 588 Express only requires slight changes to existing bus service and some additional buses.
- Concept 1 would require re-striping and resurfacing of the shoulder bus lane, modified traffic metering signal priority to allow buses to interrupt, and additional Metro Liner buses.
I would still rather see LRT over the pass, but Concept 1 is about as close as we could get to rail in efficiency without breaking the bank. As long as they can get Caltrans on board with modifying the traffic meter signals to allow buses priority, it should flow better than the Orange Line currently does. The only problem I can see with Concept 1 is that opportunistic drivers WILL attempt to use the bus lanes unless it's physically divided from the rest of the highway. Not sure how much of an impact the CHP actively ticketing drivers in the bus lane would have on this. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 6, 2014 18:48:00 GMT -8
we don't need to worry about the 10B of the total right now. We just need to worry about the four station (orange line, ventura, ucla, purple line) phase one. Get through the choke point of the sepulveda pass, connect two rail lines and it's only 2 billion. Building out additional phases can happen later, the important thing is to get that four station phase one built. Not sure where you got $2B? It is going to be more like double that. iirc, subway stations cost 250 million each. Four stations, 1 billion. tunneling is cheap, and it's going under undeveloped mountains most of the route, so probably about 200 million there. Figure another 800 million for everything else (and that seems generous considering 70% of the route won't have ANY utility relocation). I forgot it has to be LRT, so you might need an extra 200 million for a maintenance yard. (if it were HRT you could probably use the purple line, but HRT isn't on the table). so 2.2 billion. I don't see how you got to 4 billion for a four station fully subterranean LRT line. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyg2014 on Mar 6, 2014 19:30:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 6, 2014 20:07:27 GMT -8
Not sure where you got $2B? It is going to be more like double that. iirc, subway stations cost 250 million each. Four stations, 1 billion. tunneling is cheap, and it's going under undeveloped mountains most of the route, so probably about 200 million there. Figure another 800 million for everything else (and that seems generous considering 70% of the route won't have ANY utility relocation). I forgot it has to be LRT, so you might need an extra 200 million for a maintenance yard. (if it were HRT you could probably use the purple line, but HRT isn't on the table). so 2.2 billion. I don't see how you got to 4 billion for a four station fully subterranean LRT line. $200M to bore an eight mile tunnel that would take years for the TBM to get through? Are you completely delusional? Just drilling the vents from the top of the SM Mountains will cost that much. We should just tunnel everything if that were true. it would be a lot cheaper to just build Expo as subway then. As others have stated, Metro's estimate is $5B for the light rail option to Expo. Take approx. a billion of that to end at Westwood and there is your $4B. |
|
UnapprovedGuest7800
Guest
|
Post by UnapprovedGuest7800 on Mar 7, 2014 9:29:04 GMT -8
My father was telling me a story about the day the 405 freeway opened. He said that, during its planning, he wrote several letters to the city council and to caltrans telling them that they would have been better off building a rail tunnel under the mountain. Here we are 50 years later looking at the same trade-off. We are fortunate to have the potential oppertunity (as slim as it is given funding restraints) to build a rail transit line through the Sepulveda Pass. I don't want to have to tell my daughter or her future children about how my generation wasted our chance to build the right type transit system for this critical corridor. I say rail or nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 7, 2014 9:57:46 GMT -8
it only costs 83 million to drill a much larger tunnel under a fully built out seattle. It should easily be cheaper to drill a tunnel under nothing. How much did the tunnel from hollywood highland to north hollywood cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 7, 2014 11:59:22 GMT -8
it only costs 83 million to drill a much larger tunnel under a fully built out seattle. It should easily be cheaper to drill a tunnel under nothing. How much did the tunnel from hollywood highland to north hollywood cost? No offense, but you need to read and comprehend in detail a little more before you spit out numbers as supposed facts, because you keep doing this and are way way off. The $83M you cite was just the cost to create the specific boring machine for this project, not the actual tunneling, which is far more involved than just developing a boring machine. The overall cost of this project is north of $4B, and it is approx. 2 miles of tunneling. Last I heard, the TBM was stuck and they were trying to figure out a way to rescue it, so it looks like the cost may rise quite a bit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacement_tunnel |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Mar 8, 2014 21:27:30 GMT -8
Concept 5 is rail only and it's not going to happen if you want private investment. Concept 6 is a car AND rail tunnel so it's the one that will most likely to happen. Concept 5 and 6 are the same through Sepulveda Pass, the geographic area of the study. There will be no local service between Ventura Blvd and Westwood in either scenario. Concept 6 doesn't preclude light rail extension at grade north of Ventura Blvd but that's a different study (Van Nuy Blvd corridor). Concept 6 with rail and car tunnel scares me. How much more car lanes do you need? That'll be like 8 car lanes each way between the Valley and the Westside. At that point, what's the point of rail as you are just funding its competition. Then people are going to say "nobody takes trains anyways", heck because driving is way tooooo convenient in the city of LA. Absolutely right. Couldn't Metro, in theory, cover the costs of some of the stations with the Measure R/Measure R 2.0 provisions? The private contractor would build x, y, z stations and Metro would compensate them. Yes, I know that isn't a perfect plan because Metro would stand to lose millions of dollars in fare recovery, but isn't that already happening? I think this along the right lines. I think a UCLA station here would be fantastic and a missed opp. if not there. Also, a station between the Expo Line and LAX would be good too. Other than that, I think it is fine with just Sylmar (Antelope Valley Line Connection), Van Nuys (Ventura Line Connection), Orange Line Connection, maybe a Ventura Blvd. station, UCLA, Westwood Village (Purple Line Connection), Expo Line Connection, Mar Vista/West Culver City Station possibly, and LAX. A line like this is going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10B. Even with a Measure R+, it is doubtful there would be enough local money to cover anywhere near that. New Starts won't cover much either as that is being scaled back by Congress. A PPP is probably the only choice or it will never happen. I am leery of the car tunnel, because there will be a lot of opposition to that, depending on where the tunnel surfaces and so forth. I do like the idea of commuters funding the whole project though and people in the Valley will pay $10-$15 a pop no problem to save 30 minutes on their commute each way. Assuming that you are serious about charging $10-$15 a pop to cross the mountain each day, then these lanes are going to be the epitome of "Lexus Lanes" with it's own Wikipedia entry. Many people are going to wait in traffic in order to save their hard earned cash. With rates like these, the odds that the County and Metro together will have to bail out the PPP operator will be higher than even. Honestly, I think the hope that a private party would even be interested in either the highway or rail tunnels is a little far fetched. Even with premium fares, the amount of time it would take to recoup the construction costs of either tunnel is truly astronomical. The highway tunnel is projected at $10-13 billion. A LRT tunnel just from the Orange to Expo is projected at $6-7 billion. The full Valley to LAX train (which any private company is clearly going to want before agreeing) is over $14 billion. Even if Metro gifts the private party half the construction costs, $7 billion profit from a transport system with 4 stops? Good luck. The problem also applies to the idea of building Concept 2 and then saving up for a Metro rail tunnel. Even if we assume that the 405 HOT lanes bring in TWICE what the 110/10 lanes bring in now, it would still take over 300 years to afford the rail runnel... It does seem amazing, but after hearing the presentation from Metro it seems as if there is huge interest. One thing is that the current HOT Lanes require free passage for carpools, which take up a lot of the capacity. These tunnels won't need to do that. Also, rail will have a premium pricing too, so with that you get higher income demographic and ability to make more money advertising and with other services vs. Metro's current low income demographic. Even better if they don't have to offer disabled, senior, and student discounts, which really hurt the bottom line and make current operations a huge drain on public coffers.You bring up a very good point and a potentially huge flaw. There will be a demand for passage into West LA but the high fares will depress that demand. Metro and the PPP operator will undoubtedly model that forecast (but if Metro can be counted on for one thing they appear to understate the demand for transit ex. Orange and Expo Lines) but because this line would be a much different and unprecedented transit line for LA County any errors will be magnified. Especially since any mistakes on the demand curve will make this a very expensive boondoggle with the County having to bail out the PPP operator. Frankly, I am against the PPP. I know that this option might be the only way the project pencils out but I think the Mayors of LA, Santa Monica, Culver City, Beverly Hills and the County Supervisors should take a deep breath and use up the political capital that they collectively have to request that the tax payers fund the 6 Billion or so for a LRT line-Option 5 as the most cost effective and seamless expansion of the Metro system possible. It won't happen. Instead we will end up with the 710 Big Dig twin with lawsuits and years of delays. I know when I mention this project to people they are like "huh". Another thing, I don't like Metro's recent platitudes with the East San Fernando Transit Corridor. They say that stations south of the Orange Line will be studied with the Sepulveda-405 transit corridor but obviously there is no other information with Metro huddling with PPP prospects. |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 11, 2014 6:48:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 11, 2014 20:42:36 GMT -8
So I went - not sure about anyone else - and I'd say it was a pretty good meeting. Councilman Bonin is strongly in support of making the Sepulveda corridor project into a complete, Sylmar-to-LAX corridor project. He is also advocating more BRT service in-city to better connect the rail lines with the surrounding communities. However, it seems that his biggest advocacy at the moment is getting an LAX Connect facility done right.
Thinking back to Metro's EIR on the Sepulveda corridor, it occurred to me (and others at the meeting) that the HOV lanes they're building over the 405 might work better as HOT. I suggested combine the center HOT lanes with dedicated shoulder bus lanes, which could at least get a workable version of a complete LAX-Sylmar (or even Valencia) corridor in only a few years instead of the 10-15 years it would take to study and build any sort of tunnel under the pass.
Interestingly enough, the meeting's sponsors were Uber, Google and Lyft.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Apr 12, 2014 15:49:03 GMT -8
The emphasis on LAX is troubling because along with the political push to connect the airport with the Crenshaw line, presumably by a people mover, there is decreased attention to the currently developing EIR for the Van Nuys transit corridor and an utter lack of information about the Sepulveda Pass/405 transit corridor. An LAX connection is at least 6 years away but the Van Nuys project is happening now.
If Metro were to try to add additional curb bus lanes to the 405 it would be a serious mistake and a P/R disaster. The public hates the currently way overdue project and the outcry would be immense especially as Metro appears to be serious about requesting additional tax money from the public. The Orange line is often cited as a success but there is considerable grumbling about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 12, 2014 18:58:42 GMT -8
The emphasis on LAX is troubling because along with the political push to connect the airport with the Crenshaw line, presumably by a people mover, there is decreased attention to the currently developing EIR for the Van Nuys transit corridor and an utter lack of information about the Sepulveda Pass/405 transit corridor. An LAX connection is at least 6 years away but the Van Nuys project is happening now. If Metro were to try to add additional curb bus lanes to the 405 it would be a serious mistake and a P/R disaster. The public hates the currently way overdue project and the outcry would be immense especially as Metro appears to be serious about requesting additional tax money from the public. The Orange line is often cited as a success but there is considerable grumbling about it. Not sure I understand the logic. You expect Metro to suspend all planning work even on projects that come first in Measure R? The Sepulveda Pass Project is not to receive any Measure R funds for over 20 years. The only way anything is built here as far as a tunnel is with a high toll highway and probably a premium fare rail transit operated by the private sector. |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 12, 2014 21:25:53 GMT -8
If Metro were to try to add additional curb bus lanes to the 405 it would be a serious mistake and a P/R disaster. [...] The Orange line is often cited as a success but there is considerable grumbling about it. There is considerable grumbling about the Orange Line because Metro, in their infinite wisdom and constrained by the anti-rail NIMBYs in the Valley, decided to turn a rail corridor into a busway at considerable expense. In contrast, shoulder bus lanes as specified in Option 1 are something that can be accomplished with some restriping (which has to be done as the 405 project wraps up anyway) and minimal construction (for the stations). Option 2, which suggests using the HOV lanes as bus lanes, would require building flyover connecting ramps to the HOV lanes, and we all know how long those take. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Apr 13, 2014 15:40:32 GMT -8
The emphasis on LAX is troubling because along with the political push to connect the airport with the Crenshaw line, presumably by a people mover, there is decreased attention to the currently developing EIR for the Van Nuys transit corridor and an utter lack of information about the Sepulveda Pass/405 transit corridor. An LAX connection is at least 6 years away but the Van Nuys project is happening now. If Metro were to try to add additional curb bus lanes to the 405 it would be a serious mistake and a P/R disaster. The public hates the currently way overdue project and the outcry would be immense especially as Metro appears to be serious about requesting additional tax money from the public. The Orange line is often cited as a success but there is considerable grumbling about it. Not sure I understand the logic. You expect Metro to suspend all planning work even on projects that come first in Measure R? The Sepulveda Pass Project is not to receive any Measure R funds for over 20 years. The only way anything is built here as far as a tunnel is with a high toll highway and probably a premium fare rail transit operated by the private sector. I was certainly not proposing that Metro suspend all planing, but pointing out that there is considerable political posturing for an LAX connection that is years from construction while a project that is close to making some big decisions and only a couple years from construction receives very little. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 13, 2014 18:35:22 GMT -8
Not sure I understand the logic. You expect Metro to suspend all planning work even on projects that come first in Measure R? The Sepulveda Pass Project is not to receive any Measure R funds for over 20 years. The only way anything is built here as far as a tunnel is with a high toll highway and probably a premium fare rail transit operated by the private sector. I was certainly not proposing that Metro suspend all planing, but pointing out that there is considerable political posturing for an LAX connection that is years from construction while a project that is close to making some big decisions and only a couple years from construction receives very little. The airport connection has the same timing as the north valley transit corridor as far as Measure R money and it has some urgency as far as planning since the Crenshaw Line is under construction. More people in the region pay attention to LAX since it draws people throughout the County and thus is higher profile and gets more press. The North Valley Project only has a narrow constituency and none outside certain portions of the Valley. If this project is going to be rail, it is going to be many years off unless a second Measure R is passed. They have no where near enough funds as of now for this to be rail. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 14, 2014 8:38:56 GMT -8
The emphasis on LAX is troubling because along with the political push to connect the airport with the Crenshaw line, presumably by a people mover, there is decreased attention to the currently developing EIR for the Van Nuys transit corridor and an utter lack of information about the Sepulveda Pass/405 transit corridor. An LAX connection is at least 6 years away but the Van Nuys project is happening now. If Metro were to try to add additional curb bus lanes to the 405 it would be a serious mistake and a P/R disaster. The public hates the currently way overdue project and the outcry would be immense especially as Metro appears to be serious about requesting additional tax money from the public. The Orange line is often cited as a success but there is considerable grumbling about it. California should pass a constitutional amendment barring all non maintenance work on the 405, it's the only way to end the insanity of perpetual construction. Also, we're paying how many billion dollars to build this retarded car pool lane through the sepulveda pass and now people want to steal that HOV lane from the public who paid for it and donate that lane to the millionaires and billionaires as their own private HOT lane? Such a scheme is breathtakingly evil. Note: This is factually not true. Garcetti has not taken a position on the sales tax pitched by 2 councilmembers!In any event, Measure R2 will not pass because Garcetti will get his sidewalk tax passed this fall, and people won't vote for another new tax R2 so soon after in 2016. So by getting on the ballot first, the sidewalk tax will prevent R2 from passing in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Apr 14, 2014 15:26:09 GMT -8
I was certainly not proposing that Metro suspend all planing, but pointing out that there is considerable political posturing for an LAX connection that is years from construction while a project that is close to making some big decisions and only a couple years from construction receives very little. as the north valley transit corridor as far as Measure R money and it has some urgency as far as planning since the Crenshaw Line is under construction. More people in the region pay attention to LAX since it draws people throughout the County and thus is higher profile and gets more press. The North Valley Project only has a narrow constituency and none outside certain portions of the Valley. If this project is going to be rail, it is going to be many years off unless a second Measure R is passed. They have no where near enough funds as of now for this to be rail. Your belief that that an LAX connection is only a couple of years away from construction is wrong, please point to some proof otherwise. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (to use it's full name -though I am honored that you use my name) is only a couple of years from construction as I indicated above. The 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor has now subsumed ESFVTC planning south of the Orange Line. The placement of an LAX connection and this project within measure R is besides the point since obviously ESFVTC is at advanced planing stages and LAX is not even close. It is also galling that you subscribe to a world view that the 2 Million plus people of the San Fernando Valley and their transit needs are in your words "has a narrow constituency and none outside certain portions of the Valley." With that viewpoint, it certainly would not be surprising to see any Measure R++ or anything else put forward by Metro not succeeding in further elections. Are the people wanting better transit in the valley, per your words "a narrow constituency" of hooligans, conspiracists, or just not realists? I have some real doubts about how good or popular a connection between LAX and Metro will be, or how easy it will be to build, but that is outside the purview of this particular post and I do support it nonetheless despite being in the land of narrow constituencies. Rhetorical question, people take taxis, shuttle vans and Flyaway buses to LAX now, how popular will taking your luggage on Metro going to be? |
|
|
|
Post by Cyg2014 on Apr 14, 2014 16:22:13 GMT -8
That would be a more poignant concern if there weren't other systems in place that we can reference. Both JFK and BART's SFO connection average around 15,000 boardings per day. Chicago's O'hare station runs about 10,000 boardings per day, DC's Reagan connection 10,000, Atlanta's MARTA connection 11,000, Vancouver's 13,000. Even smaller cities/systems like St Louis have over 5,000 boardings per day.
Although the LAX connection initially will only serve the Green and Crenshaw lines directly, it's a fairly safe bet that ridership will be significant. It is also the #1 requested Metro feature on every public survey Metro runs, and remember that the area is also one of the largest employment centers in the entire county.
In the end, the airport connection and transit in the Valley shouldn't be seen as competitors. They are both priorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 14, 2014 18:44:46 GMT -8
The airport connection has the same timing as the north valley transit corridor as far as Measure R money and it has some urgency as far as planning since the Crenshaw Line is under construction. More people in the region pay attention to LAX since it draws people throughout the County and thus is higher profile and gets more press. The North Valley Project only has a narrow constituency and none outside certain portions of the Valley. If this project is going to be rail, it is going to be many years off unless a second Measure R is passed. They have no where near enough funds as of now for this to be rail. Your belief that that an LAX connection is only a couple of years away from construction is wrong, please point to some proof otherwise. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (to use it's full name -though I am honored that you use my name) is only a couple of years from construction as I indicated above. The 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor has now subsumed ESFVTC planning south of the Orange Line. The placement of an LAX connection and this project within measure R is besides the point since obviously ESFVTC is at advanced planing stages and LAX is not even close. It is also galling that you subscribe to a world view that the 2 Million plus people of the San Fernando Valley and their transit needs are in your words "has a narrow constituency and none outside certain portions of the Valley." With that viewpoint, it certainly would not be surprising to see any Measure R++ or anything else put forward by Metro not succeeding in further elections. Are the people wanting better transit in the valley, per your words "a narrow constituency" of hooligans, conspiracists, or just not realists? I have some real doubts about how good or popular a connection between LAX and Metro will be, or how easy it will be to build, but that is outside the purview of this particular post and I do support it nonetheless despite being in the land of narrow constituencies. Rhetorical question, people take taxis, shuttle vans and Flyaway buses to LAX now, how popular will taking your luggage on Metro going to be? I never said an LAX Connection was starting construction in 2 years. Please don't make up quotes that weren't made. It undermines your credibility. It does have Measure R money coming to it at the same time as the North Valley Project. Its planning now is critical, which is what you were complaining about. The North Valley Project is hardly a project for the entire Valley. Most people in the Valley live no where this line and it has no major job, commercial or cultural hubs along it, so yes it is a very narrow constituency. If the Valley votes against a Measure R+ then they will just have another bus line to go with their never to be converted Orange Line. LAX at least has the airport to help fund the People Mover so is closer to a rail line than this is. You aren't building any type of rail line for $188M. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Apr 14, 2014 19:27:02 GMT -8
Your belief that that an LAX connection is only a couple of years away from construction is wrong, please point to some proof otherwise. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (to use it's full name -though I am honored that you use my name) is only a couple of years from construction as I indicated above. The 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor has now subsumed ESFVTC planning south of the Orange Line. The placement of an LAX connection and this project within measure R is besides the point since obviously ESFVTC is at advanced planing stages and LAX is not even close. It is also galling that you subscribe to a world view that the 2 Million plus people of the San Fernando Valley and their transit needs are in your words "has a narrow constituency and none outside certain portions of the Valley." With that viewpoint, it certainly would not be surprising to see any Measure R++ or anything else put forward by Metro not succeeding in further elections. Are the people wanting better transit in the valley, per your words "a narrow constituency" of hooligans, conspiracists, or just not realists? I have some real doubts about how good or popular a connection between LAX and Metro will be, or how easy it will be to build, but that is outside the purview of this particular post and I do support it nonetheless despite being in the land of narrow constituencies. Rhetorical question, people take taxis, shuttle vans and Flyaway buses to LAX now, how popular will taking your luggage on Metro going to be? I never said an LAX Connection was starting construction in 2 years. Please don't make up quotes that weren't made. It undermines your credibility. It does have Measure R money coming to it at the same time as the North Valley Project. Its planning now is critical, which is what you were complaining about. The North Valley Project is hardly a project for the entire Valley. Most people in the Valley live no where this line and it has no major job, commercial or cultural hubs along it, so yes it is a very narrow constituency. If the Valley votes against a Measure R+ then they will just have another bus line to go with their never to be converted Orange Line. LAX at least has the airport to help fund the People Mover so is closer to a rail line than this is. You aren't building any type of rail line for $188M. Sorry. I quoted what YOU wrote (even highlighted portions of it) and did not make anything up, therefore the intellectual dishonesty of what you just wrote is enormous, tragic and undermines any pretense of civility. Your credibility on this issue is less than zero, too bad we cannot have rational conversation without the mudslinging. It is additionally too bad that you refuse to admit that the ESFVTC is much further along with planning and potentially within 2 years of construction starting. But Please throw all the dirt that you can at the Valley and it's traffic needs. You state beneath your name that your a "Professional" but that must have become a quaint term. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 15, 2014 6:25:52 GMT -8
I never said an LAX Connection was starting construction in 2 years. Please don't make up quotes that weren't made. It undermines your credibility. It does have Measure R money coming to it at the same time as the North Valley Project. Its planning now is critical, which is what you were complaining about. The North Valley Project is hardly a project for the entire Valley. Most people in the Valley live no where this line and it has no major job, commercial or cultural hubs along it, so yes it is a very narrow constituency. If the Valley votes against a Measure R+ then they will just have another bus line to go with their never to be converted Orange Line. LAX at least has the airport to help fund the People Mover so is closer to a rail line than this is. You aren't building any type of rail line for $188M. Sorry. I quoted what YOU wrote (even highlighted portions of it) and did not make anything up, therefore the intellectual dishonesty of what you just wrote is enormous, tragic and undermines any pretense of civility. Your credibility on this issue is less than zero, too bad we cannot have rational conversation without the mudslinging. It is additionally too bad that you refuse to admit that the ESFVTC is much further along with planning and potentially within 2 years of construction starting. But Please throw all the dirt that you can at the Valley and it's traffic needs. You state beneath your name that your a "Professional" but that must have become a quaint term. You quoted what I said and then made up that I said the LAX Connector would start in two years. No where did I say that. You completely made that up. If this project is ready for construction or the planning is nearly complete then what exactly is it? Sure, they could start construction in two years if they are going to build some bus shelters and some basic aspects of BRT. If they are thinking rail, they need another Measure R and that is years off (2017 would be the soonest funds would come from this). |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 15, 2014 7:17:23 GMT -8
Look, as much as I (and I'm guessing we all would) love to see rail over the Sepulveda Pass, it's obvious the money just doesn't exist for it now, nor will it for a while. So the ONLY way to make good use of the 405 upgrade investment is to add BRT and HOT, with the provision that toll profits be placed in an infrastructure upgrade account for an eventual rail upgrade, whether at-grade, abovegrade, or most likely underground.
Meanwhile, LAWA is deep into studies on the LAX Connect project. I don't see why the two projects can't co-exist; it's just that we're going to see BRT years before we see rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 15, 2014 14:07:21 GMT -8
Look, as much as I (and I'm guessing we all would) love to see rail over the Sepulveda Pass, it's obvious the money just doesn't exist for it now, nor will it for a while. So the ONLY way to make good use of the 405 upgrade investment is to add BRT and HOT, with the provision that toll profits be placed in an infrastructure upgrade account for an eventual rail upgrade, whether at-grade, abovegrade, or most likely underground. Meanwhile, LAWA is deep into studies on the LAX Connect project. I don't see why the two projects can't co-exist; it's just that we're going to see BRT years before we see rail. I think that the Silver line and the Orange line were a mistake as BRT, but they work fairly well since they are for the most part grade separated. really hate the idea of a compromise on this one, but you may be correct. A BRT in an HOT lane does work, but is so god awful it makes me feel cheated. Although, both a BRT and a future rail could exist at the same time, as you say... I am surprised that there is not a group of very very angry (and shouting) Westsiders and Valley peps standing up for this and making demands, like the Foothill extension. They are spending billions on adding a useless carpool lane to the 405, why not send billions on something better? I suppose it's not the end of the world. I would rather see a Vermont rail — that I would actually use, since I rarely travel west of Fairfax. I feel bad for the Westiside/Valley if a BRT is what happens, but they could still do something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 15, 2014 18:24:47 GMT -8
I'd honestly rather see the BRT run down the 405 shoulders. It avoids dealing with further flyover construction shutting the freeway down, the bus remains closer to where the exits and stations would be, and the existing flow-control signals can be used to ensure the bus always has priority over incoming traffic. In other news, I finally got my "official" style dream map mostly finished. I should thank pretty much everyone here, since the feedback I read here on the various planning projects was invaluable in putting this together. imgur.com/LJjTcev |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 16, 2014 9:54:57 GMT -8
I agree that we can have both 405 BRT and an underground rail tunnel. It's a transit corridor that has enough demand for both.
|
|
|
|
Post by AnotherGuest on Apr 18, 2014 7:18:59 GMT -8
I think everyone agrees that rail is the best solution, while also realizing that it is too expensive given the allocations under R. Would it make sense then to build rail segments where we can afford it, and hold off on the expensive parts (or the tunnel under the mountai) until more funds are available? Think about it--the $1B for the sepulveda pass corridor could be used to run light rail from UCLA to the expo line (along Westwood blvd) and the $120M for the Van Nuys corridor could build light rail from Ventura blvd up to the VN metrolink station. Leave the tunnel for a time when tolls collected from 405 HOT lanes can be applied towards it.
One problem with this idea that i see is that the ridership would be low. But then again, we lived with the purple line for 20 years so why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 18, 2014 9:00:48 GMT -8
politically the westside is already getting too much rail money. that means the last part of the line to be built must be the portion from the purple line to LAX. you can't build an expo to purple connection (unless it's a streetcar on westwood, goodluck with that), until a lot of other regions of the county get some rail money first. Crenshaw Expo to Red line is more likely to happen before the Purple to LAX portion of the Sepulveda line.
in terms of financing, by building rail through the sepulveda pass you're offering an alternative through a choke point, which is good for getting federal money for the project. That's why some people have suggested building it in more or less simultaneous phases. A four stop phase one from the purple line to the orange line. And a phase two in the van nuys corridor in the valley. The catch is that phase two would open before phase one because the construction would probably be faster but you'd need to designate the tunnel through the mountain phase one to secure enough federal financing for the line, and if you did choose to do van nuys first without designating it phase two of a rail line, it is incredibly likely they would choose to do van nuys as BRT rather than rail. And the feds wouldn't finance the tunnel if it's for BRT and is phase two of a van nuys BRT.
phase 3 would be purple line to LAX, and would be at least 80% grade separated and will be insanely expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 18, 2014 11:43:32 GMT -8
I think it's more likely the line is extended to Sylmar sooner than LAX. It's just so much cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 18, 2014 11:58:34 GMT -8
 (Hope this isn't too large.) Someone on Reddit suggested I make a time-lapse of the line construction based on my previous map. I followed the existing plans to 2017, at which point I started adding possible (unplanned) BRT routes (based on Metro Rapid routes) alongside the current Measure R projects. The hypothetical R line was one of the last ones I added; everything else is either Measure R or on the 2009 LRTP. |
|
