|
Post by usmc1401 on Feb 14, 2019 12:41:50 GMT -8
Today 2/14/2019 the daily breeze newspaper has an editorial supporting a monorail on Sepulveda Pass. More than likely also in the other newspapers that this newsgroup owns.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 14, 2019 15:48:24 GMT -8
Today 2/14/2019 the daily breeze newspaper has an editorial supporting a monorail on Sepulveda Pass. More than likely also in the other newspapers that this newsgroup owns. I believe that is just an op-ed from a USC professor, and it is not a position from the newspaper’s editorial board.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Feb 17, 2019 11:27:42 GMT -8
The Daily breeze newspaper has a front page story on the benefits of a monorail on sepulveda pass. All the same old info Walt Disney and all. being pushed by a company from China.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 23, 2019 14:33:46 GMT -8
media.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/presentation_sepulveda_transit_corridor_2019-0724.pdfRefined alternatives for both phases of the project. I appreciate that they added a Santa Monica station to study on the north phase, and that they're studying overland on the south phase. I feel like the north phase is clearly going to be HRT 1 or 3. On the south, I'd be unsurprised to see the 405 options eliminated. I imagine there will be a lot of local opinions about whether it should go down centinela, sepulveda, or overland.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jul 23, 2019 17:34:28 GMT -8
HRT 3 does present a compelling challenge to HRT 1, but SFV residents have made it clear that they're opposed to an aerial configuration, it would cost slightly more to operate, and it's slower than HRT 1.
Centinela is far and away the best option for Westside-LAX, as far as I'm concerned, because it serves the biggest population. Overland only has one good station (Venice), and Sepulveda is terrible for reasons that should be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 23, 2019 19:00:48 GMT -8
My perspective is that HRT 3 is Metro doing it's normal card-tipping. That's absolutely the preferred alternative from the staff, it seems. Seems like 1 and 2 are in place if the Valley mounts an organized resistance. More expensive, less riders. The capital cost savings on 3 vs 1 or 2 would offset the operating cost differences for 10-20 years.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 23, 2019 22:42:03 GMT -8
My perspective is that HRT 3 is Metro doing it's normal card-tipping. That's absolutely the preferred alternative from the staff, it seems. Seems like 1 and 2 are in place if the Valley mounts an organized resistance. More expensive, less riders. The capital cost savings on 3 vs 1 or 2 would offset the operating cost differences for 10-20 years. I'd say that HRT 1 and 3 are definitely metro's preferred alternatives. but these costs are totally out of control now, it's at the point where widespread long term prison sentences are needed across the board, at the consultants and at metro, because it's obvious criminal defrauding of taxpayers is going on. Can we get the FBI to raid metro and raid Ron Tutor as well?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 24, 2019 10:15:56 GMT -8
I would support any of the HRT proposals. HRT 3 is probably the best value, although it's hard to tell how real the cost estimates are. but these costs are totally out of control now, it's at the point where widespread long term prison sentences are needed across the board, at the consultants and at metro, because it's obvious criminal defrauding of taxpayers is going on. A rational process would be: establish the need, then establish the cost, then ask for the money and for project approval. We don't have a rational process. The process has been turned upside down by the structure of Measures M and R, and by the environmental review process. The way Measures M and R were written, the project is already approved and given a ton of money. Per statute, this project must be built. The money is already there in a big basket, Metro staff and contractors, ready to be swallowed up! So the next step is for Metro staff and contractors to decide how to make this project even costlier, so they can squeeze even more money out of the deal. Don't worry, the increases will get approved by the Metro Board. There is almost no incentive to save money on this project: it is essentially being designed by the contractors, who want as much as they can get. The only function of these public hearings is to help Metro staff and the contractors rally support for their preferred option. When the 'alternatives analysis' is over, the 'preferred option' is given a thumbs up/down vote by the Metro Board. At its core, the process is designed to give the Metro Board political cover to rubber stamp the contractor's desired project. When I say "the contractor", I am aware that there are more than one who will bid on this. But even that is a farce: Metro is only going to really consider one or two contractors per project. And the lack of competition is a serious impediment to keeping costs low. Believe me, I am glad that taxpayers supported the transit measures and funded these projects. Unfortunately, there are really no controls to prevent these contractors from royally screwing us over on this.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 24, 2019 10:23:42 GMT -8
At these costs, in spite of the need. This project should not be built.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jul 24, 2019 11:04:34 GMT -8
Metro probably also favors HRT 3 because it would establish a precedent for elevated heavy rail in an area with a good amount of rich white folks. If that were guaranteed to lay the groundwork for elevated heavy rail in other parts of the county (Vermont south of Gage), then I could certainly get onboard with it. Plus, it has one extra station serving an entire neighborhood that HRT 1 wouldn't. I still think the strong opposition to an aerial configuration from SFV residents, longer travel time (3 minutes isn't that insignificant), and 9,000 more riders for as little as $700 mile more tips the balance in HRT 1's favor.
One thing's for sure, MRT and HRT should be eliminated in the next round.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jul 24, 2019 11:05:47 GMT -8
*MRT and HRT2
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jul 24, 2019 15:44:05 GMT -8
As I’ve said before, to me an important piece of these projects should be how they take their place as part of a cohesive system. The fact that the ESFV line isn’t connected as part of the Sepulveda line is a joke. However I think going with HRT 3 makes it even worse. Not to mention HRT 3 eliminates any chance of ever extending that line Northward or in any direction frankly. The strange angle it takes for one and aerial stations when the residents are vehemently opposed to it? It just seems to me like the worst of the 3 options and HRT 1 is clearly the best.
As for the LAX portion, they’re making a catastrophic mistake if they even consider a purple line extension for that portion. The Cent. option should be the choice and it’s not close. It also should go about half a mile further and terminate between the Stadium and new Clippers arena.
This could be the most used Subway line in North America or it could end up being a colossal screw up by Metro. Hold your breath.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 24, 2019 19:04:59 GMT -8
HRT 3 does present a compelling challenge to HRT 1, but SFV residents have made it clear that they're opposed to an aerial configuration, it would cost slightly more to operate, and it's slower than HRT 1. Centinela is far and away the best option for Westside-LAX, as far as I'm concerned, because it serves the biggest population. Overland only has one good station (Venice), and Sepulveda is terrible for reasons that should be obvious. It's ridiculous to state that we (the SFV) have made that clear. It is the Sherman Oaks Homeowners association that is firmly opposed. They don't speak for me and certainly not for anyone else except their limited constituency.
It's easy to go on a board like this and state, with or without any evidence, that Metro is lining contractor's pockets. Truth or facts be damned especially these days. If Metro is lining pockets, by all means take it to the police, fbi, La Times or run for office yourself and win. I hope they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Prove the corruption with facts. Speculation is not fact.
Moving on........
The thing that jumps out is that the cost estimates are all within 2-3 billion of each other (don't get me started on Metro having a preference, geez). If anything, Metro won't want a huge lawsuit/fight and choose a subway.
Why the subway? The subway will be seen as a way for the Sherman Oaks Homeowners to say they won something; Metro will say something benign. If anything it's big money Nimby's that pervert the process because the cost benefit to the entire city is to just back off the aerial and just throw money at the project and dig their way out of it .
Despite everything, I'm not against the subway options; I like HRT 3 then 2. If HRT 2 is chosen......good.
A project like this could, I emphasize could, bring Federal dollars. The Feds are paying about a third of Purple Line extension. If, a big if with the current admin, the Feds bring 3-4 Billion to the project, Metro will have a lot less to make up.
If there was ever a huge Infrastructure bill, this project would surely get money. If the economy turns south, construction costs could go down. Construction costs have seen huge increases lately from what I've read.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jul 25, 2019 4:02:31 GMT -8
You hate to get political in anyway on here but I think you’d have to have the Dems win in 2020 to get money for this project and then have it negotiated into a compromise deal with a Republican Senate. I would’ve thought that Trump would relish infrastructure spending and being able to take credit for helping build massive projects like this one.
This is the kind of project that needs significant financial help if we are going to become first in the world in infrastructure. Imagine if we ever built a project like CrossRail in this country? Think about that.
In my dream scenario and what is best for LA and I’m going to say it one final time: Scrap the ESFV line, use the funds to extend the Sepulveda line a couple miles past VanNuys MetroLink. Make it all subway going down VanNuys through the Pass, down Centil through LAX and stopping with a station directly in between Inglewood stadium and Inglewood arena.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 25, 2019 8:44:00 GMT -8
The way Measures M and R were written, the project is already approved and given a ton of money. Per statute, this project must be built. The money is already there in a big basket, Metro staff and contractors, ready to be swallowed up! So the next step is for Metro staff and contractors to decide how to make this project even costlier, so they can squeeze even more money out of the deal. Don't worry, the increases will get approved by the Metro Board. There is almost no incentive to save money on this project: it is essentially being designed by the contractors, who want as much as they can get. I hadn't thought about this before, but yeah, there isn't much logic to the way these ballot measures were done. I wonder what mechanisms for oversight can realistically be enacted now, after the fact. In regards to how realistic near-term federal money is, I actually don't think it's a pipe dream. Dems pretty much need to win the senate and hold a federal trifecta for at least two years, but despite not perhaps being the most likely outcome, it is still well within realistic probability. Flipping AZ, CO, and ME are all quite realistic, especially if dem turnout proves high. After that, it's trickier -- you either have to defend AL, which probably only happens if the GOP are dumb enough to nominate Roy Moore again, or flip probably IA or NC or have a very surprising long-shot win like SC or TX, one of which is doable but definitely more of a stretch that require a wave election. But this also has the right preconditions to be a wave election, so who knows. Point being, if the dems *do* hold a trifecta for at least 2 years, a sweeping infrastucture bill is pretty likely. It's a broadly popular issue with a ton of bipartisan (voter) support that'd be seen as a pretty easy win. So, if you want the sepulveda line to get federal funds, donate to whoever's challenging Tillis or Ernst, I guess is what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 25, 2019 10:35:14 GMT -8
The way Measures M and R were written, the project is already approved and given a ton of money. Per statute, this project must be built. The money is already there in a big basket, Metro staff and contractors, ready to be swallowed up! So the next step is for Metro staff and contractors to decide how to make this project even costlier, so they can squeeze even more money out of the deal. Don't worry, the increases will get approved by the Metro Board. There is almost no incentive to save money on this project: it is essentially being designed by the contractors, who want as much as they can get. I hadn't thought about this before, but yeah, there isn't much logic to the way these ballot measures were done. I wonder what mechanisms for oversight can realistically be enacted now, after the fact. In regards to how realistic near-term federal money is, I actually don't think it's a pipe dream. Dems pretty much need to win the senate and hold a federal trifecta for at least two years, but despite not perhaps being the most likely outcome, it is still well within realistic probability. Flipping AZ, CO, and ME are all quite realistic, especially if dem turnout proves high. After that, it's trickier -- you either have to defend AL, which probably only happens if the GOP are dumb enough to nominate Roy Moore again, or flip probably IA or NC or have a very surprising long-shot win like SC or TX, one of which is doable but definitely more of a stretch that require a wave election. But this also has the right preconditions to be a wave election, so who knows. Point being, if the dems *do* hold a trifecta for at least 2 years, a sweeping infrastucture bill is pretty likely. It's a broadly popular issue with a ton of bipartisan (voter) support that'd be seen as a pretty easy win. So, if you want the sepulveda line to get federal funds, donate to whoever's challenging Tillis or Ernst, I guess is what I'm saying. There is one thing that neither of you have considered, Metro can change the scope of the project as it has already happened to the the Gold Line extension to Pomona.
The Gold Line haven't the funds to get to Pomona and were only going to extend it as far as they could with the money available and are now trying to find other funds to get it at least to Pomona, which they will probably be able to do.
The point is that if Metro only has 6 Billion to spend, when do they spend and how do they spend it. The project might be postponed for X years or they might say they can only build between Ventura blvd and the Westwood station. Who knows? They could chop this thing up and wait for money to come in.
Not building NSFVTC isn't going to magically build this line. It's chomp change at best.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2019 14:53:13 GMT -8
HRT 3 does present a compelling challenge to HRT 1, but SFV residents have made it clear that they're opposed to an aerial configuration, it would cost slightly more to operate, and it's slower than HRT 1. Centinela is far and away the best option for Westside-LAX, as far as I'm concerned, because it serves the biggest population. Overland only has one good station (Venice), and Sepulveda is terrible for reasons that should be obvious. HRT3 is only slower because it has the extra station (which will have parking, which is important in a suburban area like the Valley) and serves a different area than the Valley light rail line. That is why it has higher ridership. From the Orange Line to the Westside it is no slower than the HRT1.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2019 14:56:36 GMT -8
I hadn't thought about this before, but yeah, there isn't much logic to the way these ballot measures were done. I wonder what mechanisms for oversight can realistically be enacted now, after the fact. In regards to how realistic near-term federal money is, I actually don't think it's a pipe dream. Dems pretty much need to win the senate and hold a federal trifecta for at least two years, but despite not perhaps being the most likely outcome, it is still well within realistic probability. Flipping AZ, CO, and ME are all quite realistic, especially if dem turnout proves high. After that, it's trickier -- you either have to defend AL, which probably only happens if the GOP are dumb enough to nominate Roy Moore again, or flip probably IA or NC or have a very surprising long-shot win like SC or TX, one of which is doable but definitely more of a stretch that require a wave election. But this also has the right preconditions to be a wave election, so who knows. Point being, if the dems *do* hold a trifecta for at least 2 years, a sweeping infrastucture bill is pretty likely. It's a broadly popular issue with a ton of bipartisan (voter) support that'd be seen as a pretty easy win. So, if you want the sepulveda line to get federal funds, donate to whoever's challenging Tillis or Ernst, I guess is what I'm saying. There is one thing that neither of you have considered, Metro can change the scope of the project as it has already happened to the the Gold Line extension to Pomona.
The Gold Line haven't the funds to get to Pomona and were only going to extend it as far as they could with the money available and are now trying to find other funds to get it at least to Pomona, which they will probably be able to do.
The point is that if Metro only has 6 Billion to spend, when do they spend and how do they spend it. The project might be postponed for X years or they might say they can only build between Ventura blvd and the Westwood station. Who knows? They could chop this thing up and wait for money to come in. Not building NSFVTC isn't going to magically build this line. It's chomp change at best.
It isn't realistic to cut this project short and it isn't remotely comparable to the Gold Line extension, which isn't trying to connect lines. If they built this line and left it a mile or two short of connecting to the Purple Line, or the Orange Line or the new East Valley light rail line, then Metro would be the laughing stock of the World. The project doesn't make sense or pencil out if it doesn't connect the lines.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 25, 2019 16:16:26 GMT -8
There is one thing that neither of you have considered, Metro can change the scope of the project as it has already happened to the the Gold Line extension to Pomona.
The Gold Line haven't the funds to get to Pomona and were only going to extend it as far as they could with the money available and are now trying to find other funds to get it at least to Pomona, which they will probably be able to do.
The point is that if Metro only has 6 Billion to spend, when do they spend and how do they spend it. The project might be postponed for X years or they might say they can only build between Ventura blvd and the Westwood station. Who knows? They could chop this thing up and wait for money to come in. Not building NSFVTC isn't going to magically build this line. It's chomp change at best.
It isn't realistic to cut this project short and it isn't remotely comparable to the Gold Line extension, which isn't trying to connect lines. If they built this line and left it a mile or two short of connecting to the Purple Line, or the Orange Line or the new East Valley light rail line, then Metro would be the laughing stock of the World. The project doesn't make sense or pencil out if it doesn't connect the lines. Realistic is a subjective interpretation. Metro could chop it this up any number of ways if they only have X Billion dollars to spend. I think that they will want to at least reach the Purple Line, as I wrote "between Ventura blvd and Westwood station". (Which will be a Purple line station soon enough.) As for as it's going to "pencil out", penciling out in terms of dollars is what matters. Could the Valley see this line not reach Metrolink.... sure.....could this line not extend past Westwood......seems pretty likely to me.
Metro only has so many funds, so it's either going to delay or chop it up. If it's chopped up, I don't have crystal ball but it seems like a realistic choice.
I just recalled that the East San Fernando Valley Traffic Corridor was originally going to Van Nuys........then the Orange Line. It was going to be bus or light rail. Then bus, light rail, street car. Metro kept changing things and money will change this project too.
I don't see Metro holding onto Billions of dollars and telling the Valley or the Westside something to the effect of "Sorry, we tried but aren't going to build something...we'll get back to you in a few decades"
I'd even risk stating that even if this is just a hole in the ground between Ventura and UCLA, it would be better than the daily hell that is the 405. And it will be cheaper to build now that X number of years in the future, but I digress.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 25, 2019 16:18:44 GMT -8
ugh
what I wanted to say was "originally going to Ventura Blvd.....then the Orange Line
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 25, 2019 18:49:12 GMT -8
There is one thing that neither of you have considered, Metro can change the scope of the project as it has already happened to the the Gold Line extension to Pomona.
The Gold Line haven't the funds to get to Pomona and were only going to extend it as far as they could with the money available and are now trying to find other funds to get it at least to Pomona, which they will probably be able to do.
The point is that if Metro only has 6 Billion to spend, when do they spend and how do they spend it. The project might be postponed for X years or they might say they can only build between Ventura blvd and the Westwood station. Who knows? They could chop this thing up and wait for money to come in. Not building NSFVTC isn't going to magically build this line. It's chomp change at best.
It isn't realistic to cut this project short and it isn't remotely comparable to the Gold Line extension, which isn't trying to connect lines. If they built this line and left it a mile or two short of connecting to the Purple Line, or the Orange Line or the new East Valley light rail line, then Metro would be the laughing stock of the World. The project doesn't make sense or pencil out if it doesn't connect the lines. They did plan the Purple Line in phases and the third phase to Westwood wasn’t supposed to get done until 2036. Measure M came around and helped accelerate it. The Westwood to Expo Line segment seems to be a potential segment that could be built as a separate phase.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2019 21:18:18 GMT -8
It isn't realistic to cut this project short and it isn't remotely comparable to the Gold Line extension, which isn't trying to connect lines. If they built this line and left it a mile or two short of connecting to the Purple Line, or the Orange Line or the new East Valley light rail line, then Metro would be the laughing stock of the World. The project doesn't make sense or pencil out if it doesn't connect the lines. They did plan the Purple Line in phases and the third phase to Westwood wasn’t supposed to get done until 2036. Measure M came around and helped accelerate it. The Westwood to Expo Line segment seems to be a potential segment that could be built as a separate phase. I had forgotten that the initial phase goes to Expo, so I do agree that the section from the Purple Line to Expo could be phased, but I don’t see any other especially after Metro said East Valley Line does not have enough capacity from the Van Nuys Metrolink Station to the Orange Line. If they don’t build this line to the train station they’d be setting up a system they have said iwoukd be a failure. Note, the Purple Line is like the Gold Line in that it is just an extension that doesn’t connect to anything.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 26, 2019 10:40:31 GMT -8
I would support any of the HRT proposals. HRT 3 is probably the best value, although it's hard to tell how real the cost estimates are... When I say "the contractor", I am aware that there are more than one who will bid on this. But even that is a farce: Metro is only going to really consider one or two contractors per project. And the lack of competition is a serious impediment to keeping costs low. Believe me, I am glad that taxpayers supported the transit measures and funded these projects. Unfortunately, there are really no controls to prevent these contractors from royally screwing us over on this. My personal preferences are HRT 3 or MRT for Sepulveda Corridor in the North and Sepulveda or Sepulveda/Overland in the South. We can get some elevated HRT built for future corridors.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 31, 2019 15:27:34 GMT -8
HRT 3 does present a compelling challenge to HRT 1, but SFV residents have made it clear that they're opposed to an aerial configuration, it would cost slightly more to operate, and it's slower than HRT 1. Centinela is far and away the best option for Westside-LAX, as far as I'm concerned, because it serves the biggest population. Overland only has one good station (Venice), and Sepulveda is terrible for reasons that should be obvious. HRT3 is only slower because it has the extra station (which will have parking, which is important in a suburban area like the Valley) and serves a different area than the Valley light rail line. That is why it has higher ridership. From the Orange Line to the Westside it is no slower than the HRT1. HRT3 has a problem with only a single transfer station to/from Van Nuys whereas HRT1 has two transfer stations. That single station better be HUGE with lots of holding area for the platforms. For parking, I think Valley residents can use the Orange line station(s). I don't really see a huge utility for that extra station if it is aimed at people who drive to the station. On the Westside, I prefer Centinela for sure. It gets rail west of 405 which in my opinion is important. HRT1 + Centinela for me
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 31, 2019 19:20:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2019 0:03:45 GMT -8
Metro is asking for $1.7 billion from the Federal Transit Administration for the Sepulveda Project.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 15, 2019 15:32:31 GMT -8
The feasibility report for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor is complete. The report suggests that using a single-bore tunnel would help resolve issues with ventilation shafts and cross-passage mining under the mountains.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 16, 2019 10:22:00 GMT -8
Love that they're seriously looking at single-bore.
Also, after looking through the feasibility report, it definitely seems like they're leaning strongly toward HRT1 on the north end with HRT3 as a backup if engineering under the ESFV line proves rough. On the south end, it feels like the purple line extension and 405 alignments are effectively axed, and that they're really leaning away from Centinela. I'd expect Sepulveda with Overland as a dark horse.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 18, 2019 11:27:40 GMT -8
Glad my comments I submitted about single bore eliminating ventilation structures and cross passages construction for the mountain crossing were to good effect!
Now to convince them that in the valley they need a shallow four mile all cut and cover excavation and NYC style stations with no mezzanine for the overlap with the esfv is the best way to proceed ASAP. Otherwise it’s a clusterf**k. But there’s really no way to get out in front of that segment of the esfv to do that excavation before site prep for the light rail begins.
As for the purple line extension. It only makes sense if the sepulveda approaches and inter lines the purple tunnels from the east of the wilshire western station, which would require moving the Ucla station to the east side of campus. I don’t think anyone wants to do that.
Too bad because a single seat ride from lax to purple destinations or to the valley would be pretty amazing for one set of tunnels to achieve, but UCLA station performance takes precedence over using branching to minimize transfers
It looks like they’re putting their thumb on the scales for an overland route to Sony in any event, so the purple extension point is moot.
A shame because purple to lax would have opened the door for a more circumferential extension of purple back east!
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 18, 2019 11:34:36 GMT -8
Unrelated, if weho can do a tax district overlay to get extra money could a sepulveda hrt extension to sylmar Metrolink do the same? A tax overlay district on Santa Clarita ought to do the trick!
|
|