|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 27, 2012 0:47:01 GMT -8
Do you think they'd still riot if the lane conversion funded the Orange Line conversion to light rail and the San Fernando-LAX light rail link? I'd be all for it. Just saying there are obstacles. Hopefully, the 110 and 10 HOT lanes go well. I've been a big fan of this project even though there are quite a few people of both political persuasions who are dead against it. Ironically, this was a Bush Admin program and this will probably be the sole transit project in LA County that we really got help with from the feds out of that Admin unless you count the Eastside Gold Line, which was really a remnant of the Eastside Red Line which secured funding under the Clinton Admin. One problem with the 110 and 10 project is the transponder roll out is a little awkward and also, it is really unclear as to where the proceeds from the tolls are going to go to. I know they are going to buy some buses, but is the Silver Line going to be improved, are there going to be additional routes or service. I follow transit and it is hard for me to tell, so that means the public has no idea of the benefits to public transit from the project, which is a major lost opportunity unless it changes. The Silver Line is (& has been getting) additional service through the funding for the ExpressLanes Project. The money for the increase in frequencies this past shakeup was from this project. and will continue to be aiding the service. The Gardena Municipal Bus Lines, & Torrance Transit also have gotten money for operations and have also purchased buses that're for the project. Foothill may have gotten funding too, but I can't remember. Artesia Transit Center and many of the Harbor Transitway Stations are getting improvements because of the ExpressLanes project as well. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Sept 27, 2012 9:06:35 GMT -8
At $120M/year, the lanes would provide somewhere in the range of the $16-$18B in additional transit funding. $16B/($120M/year) = 133 years. Something seems off here. The rest of your calculations seem to have similar timelines of over 100 years. You aren't accounting for inflation. The yearly revenues will be increasing by around 2-3% every year. This doesn't mean that the buying power of that money is increasing. But it does mean that by year 35, you're probably collecting more like $240 million and by year 70 it would be close to $500 million per year. So it's definitely not 133 years or anything like that. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 27, 2012 10:01:03 GMT -8
$16B/($120M/year) = 133 years. Something seems off here. The rest of your calculations seem to have similar timelines of over 100 years. You aren't accounting for inflation. The yearly revenues will be increasing by around 2-3% every year. This doesn't mean that the buying power of that money is increasing. But it does mean that by year 35, you're probably collecting more like $240 million and by year 70 it would be close to $500 million per year. So it's definitely not 133 years or anything like that. So you mean 16B in year of expenditure dollars, or something. It's usually good practice to quote revenues in current dollars, and if you're going to issue bonds against that you'll have to discount future revenues more than inflation anyway. It's still not that great, though. I calculated it would be something like 55 years to get to $16B, even if those $16B are not in constant dollars, with a steady 3% inflation (top of your range, and $120M per year might be on the high end to begin with). You also have to account for upkeep of the road. I'm still not quite buying that there would realistically be "$16B" for transit. |
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 27, 2012 14:14:10 GMT -8
$16B/($120M/year) = 133 years. Something seems off here. The rest of your calculations seem to have similar timelines of over 100 years. You aren't accounting for inflation. The yearly revenues will be increasing by around 2-3% every year. This doesn't mean that the buying power of that money is increasing. But it does mean that by year 35, you're probably collecting more like $240 million and by year 70 it would be close to $500 million per year. So it's definitely not 133 years or anything like that. Yes, I've assumed a 3% annual increase in top line toll revenue. I think that it's justifiable given inflation and that the HOT lanes will reduce the time penalty of commutes to the Westside from the Valley - and some wealthy households on the Westside may seek larger properties in other areas. I don't see new transit service competing with those who are willing to pay the HOT fees. The 16B+ in bonding capacity in the base case scenario ($120M in year 1) is debt retired before 2050. Specifically, TIFIA debt, which has a 35 year term, is retired by 2049. The 30-year Muni bonds are retired by 2040 (because of principal paydowns). I'm still working on the write up, but I'm going to publish the spreadsheet model along with the proposal. |
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 27, 2012 14:22:01 GMT -8
You aren't accounting for inflation. The yearly revenues will be increasing by around 2-3% every year. This doesn't mean that the buying power of that money is increasing. But it does mean that by year 35, you're probably collecting more like $240 million and by year 70 it would be close to $500 million per year. So it's definitely not 133 years or anything like that. So you mean 16B in year of expenditure dollars, or something. It's usually good practice to quote revenues in current dollars, and if you're going to issue bonds against that you'll have to discount future revenues more than inflation anyway. It's still not that great, though. I calculated it would be something like 55 years to get to $16B, even if those $16B are not in constant dollars, with a steady 3% inflation (top of your range, and $120M per year might be on the high end to begin with). You also have to account for upkeep of the road. I'm still not quite buying that there would realistically be "$16B" for transit. Matt, I mean 16B+ in new funding toward YOE bonding capacity between 2016 and 2022. I say 16B+ because the model shows $20B+, but I created the model to evaluate finance for a specific $5.5B project over 7 years, not a series of projects over more years - so I'd have to make some adjustments later to figure out the potential for 405 tolling to serve as a new programmatic source of funds. I guess I should add (to signal competency?) that I have an MBA and OK financial modeling skills, but they've atrophied a bit since I took managerial model building and a bunch of real estate and financial analysis classes. |
|
|
|
Post by KRS5 on Sept 27, 2012 21:37:15 GMT -8
A couple of thoughts:
1) A lot of money can be saved by placing the tracks at grade or in a trench in Moraga Canyon (i.e., the canyon that runs immediately east of Sepulveda Canyon) which is totally undeveloped and very deep.
2) There would be a big increase in ridership if instead of using Sepulveda, you ran the line from the Westwood Wilshire station to Century City (parallel to the Wilshire line for this mile or two), to the Culver City Expo station (is it at Robertson or La Cienega?), and then to the Overland/Jefferson station that you propose. Doing that also allows the line to be more useful if there isn't the funding to take it from the Expo Line all the way to the airport, as you could use the same types of train that Expo uses it, which would provide a great UCLA to USC connection by allowing you to ride in the same train all the way down to USC.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 28, 2012 5:38:41 GMT -8
You aren't accounting for inflation. The yearly revenues will be increasing by around 2-3% every year. This doesn't mean that the buying power of that money is increasing. But it does mean that by year 35, you're probably collecting more like $240 million and by year 70 it would be close to $500 million per year. So it's definitely not 133 years or anything like that. Yes, I've assumed a 3% annual increase in top line toll revenue. I think that it's justifiable given inflation and that the HOT lanes will reduce the time penalty of commutes to the Westside from the Valley - and some wealthy households on the Westside may seek larger properties in other areas. I don't see new transit service competing with those who are willing to pay the HOT fees. The 16B+ in bonding capacity in the base case scenario ($120M in year 1) is debt retired before 2050. Specifically, TIFIA debt, which has a 35 year term, is retired by 2049. The 30-year Muni bonds are retired by 2040 (because of principal paydowns). I'm still working on the write up, but I'm going to publish the spreadsheet model along with the proposal. Sorry, I could be missing something, maybe it's because of the notion of what $16B even means (it seems strange to sum up YOE dollars from different years without specifying how much money at what time, I know it's standard practice, but it's always a bit ambiguous). Anyway, by my very rough calculations, with $120M per year base income, and a constant 3% inflation, it would take 55 years to even have $16B of YOE receipts, much less to service and retire that much debt. Maybe there's something going on where some money is allowed to accrue interest without being bonded straight away, but that never seems to be the case in practice. Here's a very simple matlab script to calculate this:
>> x = 120000000;
>> for i=2:55
x(i) = x(i-1)*1.03; % 3 percent inflation
end
>> cumsum(x)
ans =
1.0e+10 *
Columns 1 through 7
0.0120 0.0244 0.0371 0.0502 0.0637 0.0776 0.0919
Columns 8 through 14
0.1067 0.1219 0.1376 0.1537 0.1703 0.1874 0.2050
Columns 15 through 21
0.2232 0.2419 0.2611 0.2810 0.3014 0.3224 0.3441
Columns 22 through 28
0.3664 0.3894 0.4131 0.4375 0.4626 0.4885 0.5152
Columns 29 through 35
0.5426 0.5709 0.6000 0.6300 0.6609 0.6928 0.7255
Columns 36 through 42
0.7593 0.7941 0.8299 0.8668 0.9048 0.9440 0.9843
Columns 43 through 49
1.0258 1.0686 1.1126 1.1580 1.2048 1.2529 1.3025
Columns 50 through 55
1.3536 1.4062 1.4604 1.5162 1.5736 1.6329
The first lines calculate the income per year (in inflation adjusted dollars to that year), and the last line sums them up and displays them on the screen. It will take 55 years to get to $16B this way. Of course, in practice you're borrowing early on (and getting much less money, but in earlier year-dollars which are worth more), and then paying for debt servicing. That means over the course of those 55 years, you *have* to get less than $16B in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars unless you're able to sell bonds with yields that are worse than inflation. Maybe I should just wait for the excel spreadsheet (and for someone else to check it, since I'm more of a MatLab kind of guy) :-) Either way, thanks for putting in the effort to help pin down what might be feasible from a public private partnership. |
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 28, 2012 11:12:58 GMT -8
The entry is up, and the so are the spreadsheet and detailed plan. Please do look at it! I caught a significant error this morning - I was inventing money that didn't exist. The plan isn't as rosy as I thought it was a few days ago, but it still seems that $120M per year will do the trick. In the future, I'll look at what changing the lane from HOT3+ to HOT5+ when the light rail opens might do for revenues and alleviate an early-year cash flow crunch that happens in the absence of invented money. A lot of the bonding capacity I mentioned came out of the money I invented. I built the model to evaluate a $5.5B project so the error I had was really magnified when I substituted in a $26B project. Now, I guess the funding headline for other projects is that the HOT lanes would produce about $15B in YOE dollars between 2040 and 2069. That's roughly 15% of total receipts expected under Measure J - so it shows that tolling can be significant. I'm trying to make this an open source planning effort - the more critical eyes on the plan and numbers, the better the proposal will become, and the more viable it might be to the public. |
|
|
|
Post by Sunnyday1 on Nov 29, 2012 4:32:34 GMT -8
I just happened to find this report at Metro's website regarding the 405/Sepulveda Pass Corridor. Option 6 (see page 26 to see it made explicitly clear in the report) appears to be Metro Staff's choice which would appear to preclude any connection to the East San Fernando Transit Corridor. This is especially disappointing for those advocating rail. Metro said that they were going to combine both projects into the study but that doesn't seem to have worked out. www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/11.../20121114P&PItem21.pdf I hope that works or Google: sepulveda pass Systems Planning Study It is the one dated November 14 2012 |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 29, 2012 8:41:27 GMT -8
Good find...
The rail options from Sylmar to LAX are:
Option 5a: Light rail, 28 miles, partial tunnel, $8 billion, 69 minutes time
Option 5b: HRT, 28 miles, full tunnel, $13-15 billion, 53 minutes time
The study also mentions on page 23 that another alternative is to implement the managed lanes first, which would allow you to raise money to help pay for either of the rail options. I like this idea, though the amounts involved I think might be tough to come by.
The HOT 110/10 lanes are supposed to gross about $20 million per year, plus you have to maintain them, so somewhat less. Building the managed lanes (option 2) is within the ~$2 billion allocated to the project via Measure R. But then the yearly revenue is maybe $30 million? Of course, you could charge higher tolls than the 110/10.
If you were trying to finance even the less expensive LRT option, bonding $8 billion at say 4% would cost you $320 million in interest per year. The HOT revenue will only cover about 10% of the yearly interest payment. You would also have to likely raise more revenue from the users of the LRT/HRT system. If you had 100,000 daily boardings, per year thats (weekdays only) 26 million trips total. Throw in another 4 million for weekend trips and you are at 30 million. For just the riders to pay the remaining ~$290 million for the bonds it would be $10 each per trip.
Assuming that won't fly, you would have to do one or more of the following:
1. Raise more money via the initial HOT lanes.
2. Charge zone based fares for the rail component, not the standard $1.50 MTA fare
3. Put up more public money up front
I think it seems reasonable to actually do all of the above in combination. A private operator will not be charging MTA fares, they need to make money. The HOT lanes coming over the pass could easily support higher tolls than the 110/10 corridors, how much more I'm not sure. And finally, there should be more public money since something eventually needs to be done to alleviate the traffic problem, and get the valley linked to the basin and LAX.
I would build the managed lanes, with the idea of being able to then use the revenue from them for the HRT link from Sylmar to LAX. Then in say 2016 when the HOT lanes are up and running, take another shot at a Measure J+. By then you will know how much $$$ the HOT lanes are providing, and have a better grasp of the HRT cost. The 110/10 HOT lanes will show what the revenue stream could do over time too. With Expo 2 and FE open, voters will be more inclined to pony up $$$ for this project. You could even go so far as to ask for another 0.25% temporary increase, which would raise another $500 million per year. Do that for 5 years, and the financial side of the project becomes more realistic.
I would drop back from HRT to LRT only if it wasn't possible to do the HRT. But that decision should be delayed as long as possible, since this project will be immensely important. You don't want to cut corners, only to later regret not doing it right the first time.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 29, 2012 11:20:02 GMT -8
I just happened to find this report at Metro's website regarding the 405/Sepulveda Pass Corridor. Option 6 (see page 26 to see it made explicitly clear in the report) appears to be Metro Staff's choice which would appear to preclude any connection to the East San Fernando Transit Corridor. This is especially disappointing for those advocating rail. Metro said that they were going to combine both projects into the study but that doesn't seem to have worked out. www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/11.../20121114P&PItem21.pdf I hope that works or Google: sepulveda pass Systems Planning Study It is the one dated November 14 2012 The link you provided didn't work for me, but this one does: www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/11_November/20121114P&PItem21.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 29, 2012 11:26:23 GMT -8
HRT at $15B? That is a ridiculous amount of money. For perspective, the entire Westside Subway is getting roughly $4.2B from Measure R. I'm sorry, but we'll never see $15B going here. Light rail at $8B would be amazing, but I wouldn't hold my breath. We basically have $1.2B for the entire corridor so that is quite a funding gap even with tolls and federal matching. We are no where close to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sunnyday1 on Nov 29, 2012 11:26:35 GMT -8
www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/11_November/20121114P&PItem21.pdfThese are the things that I do not like, granted that I have read it once so I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. Staff advocate option 6 which begins toll roads at Roscoe Blvd and the 405 with rail starting at the Van Nuys Metrolink. This seems like the 710 extension all over again (in the middle of the Valley and West LA) and I predict it will be a debacle. On top of that there will be NO CONNECTION with the East San Fernando Transit Corridor and/or the Orange line. 2. Orange line buses could be connected to the 405 at Victory Blvd if the 405 were widened and they could build new freeway traffic lanes that would allow access to all motorists to the new tolled road. I am not sure why they would have two access points...help to alleviate traffic... Orange line would stay BRT indefinitely and would run with traffic in this scenario. 3. Metro said that they were going to coordinate with ESFVTC but I don't see much evidence of that in the report outside of Option 5a. Heavy rail is mentioned in this report but ESFVTC has basically said that it will LRT or BRT. 4. Not much is said about LRT/HRT in the report BUT page 4 states that this option should have a 10 mile tunnel for 5-6 Billion dollars. What happened to the 6 mile tunnel that would connect to the East San Fernando Transit Corridor?  ?? 5. The plan relies to heavily on a public/private partnership and the "revenue" it will provide which seems somewhat superfluous because how much money could be raised and how is not specifically addressed in the report. I hate to be so negative so I will stop now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sunnyday1 on Nov 29, 2012 11:40:53 GMT -8
Supervisor Yaroslavsky, Mayor Villaraigosa and the candidates running for his office will need to tell Metro how to build it and connect it to the East San Fernando Transit Corridor. I fear that it will need a Mayor with a big bat to see this done right.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 29, 2012 15:38:20 GMT -8
This one has always had the potential to be awful, with the graphics on the metro page of a Rapid bus. It has to be rail, bus in a freeway is just a bad idea. 100% grade-separated rail would be best. I like #5 on the old report, no cars please. www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/06_June/20120620P&PItem14Handout.pdfTo me, Metro caving in to BRT on the Sepulveda Corridor is the result of the Valleys enormous mistake; outlawing above ground rail on the Orange Line. |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Dec 4, 2012 19:35:30 GMT -8
???I want to make sure I am reading the Nov. 14, 2012 Report correctly: Page ES-5 says " Concept 6: Combined Highway and Rail Tunnels with Demand Pricing: ...21 miles of private transit shuttle between Van Nuys Metrolink Station and Century/Aviation; P3 potentiall" Page ES-11 says " P3 sets tolls at proportionate cost to highway tolls." Is Metro proposing that people in the San Fernando Valley pay market prices for use of transit?  I am incredulous that after being put last in line for transit, Metro is suggesting that the SFV not be subsidized. If market pricing is the case, then the only other P3 options are bus routes. I hope I'm reading it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 10, 2013 11:37:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 10, 2013 13:10:13 GMT -8
It's pretty clear that LRT is all around the best option. HRT is too expensive in the long run, especially south of Wilshire and north into the valley, and the gap between each technology's projected ridership appear to be minimal, at best.
Factor in compatibility with not just one line (whereas HRT's is just the Purple Line), but three or more, and Light Rail easily makes the most sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 10, 2013 14:24:49 GMT -8
I know they are leaning towards a PPP project so this makes #5 less likely. Interesting how heavy rail is a lower cost for the same distance than light rail (for the intial segment). Light rail works better for the long run. #6 would be great, but it just seems way too big. There is just such a huge funding gap right now it is hard to envision anything without more funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 6, 2013 10:07:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 6, 2013 13:11:31 GMT -8
I think if anyone proposed any additional construction on the 405 whether rail or lanes, the populace of los angeles would revolt and pass a law forbidding additional construction, ala the laws the stopped the subway construction on wilshire.
There's not a lot of measure R money allocated for a Valley Westside Rail Tunnell, would it be possible to build a minimally operatable segment that is only two stops? I figure the biggest difficulty would be building stations that work with the Wilshire Subway stations, right? And stations are some of the more expensive and long duration projects?
Could they take the Measure R money available and build a rail tunnel from a multilevel station at Wilshire/UCLA/Westwood and tunnel under the pass and then build a station on Ventura/Sepulveda or Ventura/VanNuys in Van Nuys to connect to a future LRT on Ventura?
Then extending the line north into Van Nuys or South towards LAX could be funded by future additional Measure J like initiatives, but the key of the tunnel under the pass would be completed and would be able to connect to two other rail lines. with great options for future expansion of the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 7, 2013 8:47:56 GMT -8
The Westwood/Wilshire station will not be a problem. It hasn't been built yet and at the current pace, it won't be built until around 2025 or so. We should know by that time what the 405/JEM line alignment will be like and the station will be redesigned to accommodate both lines.
Money is a red herring. We have the money, just not allocated to building subway. I think there will be enough popular support to shift highway construction funds to projects like the 405/JEM line within the next 10 years. We just spent $1.2 billion adding one carpool lane on the 405... the JEM line segment 1A as proposed by Transit Coalition - the tunnel portion from Westwood/Wilshire to Ventura/Sepulveda, roughly equal distance to the 405 north bound carpool lane, would have cost about $1.5 billion. To extend the line to Sylmar and LAX on either end will probably cost another $1.5 billion or so. But the point here is that the money is available if there is political will to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 7, 2013 15:25:45 GMT -8
Money is a red herring. We have the money, just not allocated to building subway. I think there will be enough popular support to shift highway construction funds to projects like the 405/JEM line within the next 10 years. We just spent $1.2 billion adding one carpool lane on the 405... the JEM line segment 1A as proposed by Transit Coalition - the tunnel portion from Westwood/Wilshire to Ventura/Sepulveda, roughly equal distance to the 405 north bound carpool lane, would have cost about $1.5 billion. To extend the line to Sylmar and LAX on either end will probably cost another $1.5 billion or so. But the point here is that the money is available if there is political will to make it happen. This argument is not fully fleshed when you consider the following; - to extend the line from Ventura to Sylmar will be over $2.0B per the East SFV Transit Corridor Study,
- to extend the line from Westwood to LAX will be another approx $2.5 for LRT
media.metro.net/board/Items/2012/11_november/20121114P&PItem21Handout.pdf
- In addition there's no highway projects in the Westside Sub-region that are funded by Measure R. The S.F. Valley highway projects funded with Measure R dollars are committed. So there's little likelihood this highway to transit funding swap will occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 7, 2013 20:43:59 GMT -8
So basically we're looking at least a $7 Billion project, or around the price of the Westside Extension project.
I still say it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by North LA on May 7, 2013 23:25:57 GMT -8
So basically we're looking at least a $7 Billion project, or around the price of the Westside Extension project. I still say it's worth it. I think ridership will be similar for the Sepulveda Line as the Purple Line exstension. So if the purple is worth it, then so is the Sepuveda Line. Besides, I would think that the purple line ridership depends on a Valley connection. Otherwise, it will be missing out on a half million potential customers. All that being said, even LRT would be god send over buses on the nation's worst freeway. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 8, 2013 11:27:39 GMT -8
I think ridership will be similar for the Sepulveda Line as the Purple Line exstension. So if the purple is worth it, then so is the Sepuveda Line. Besides, I would think that the purple line ridership depends on a Valley connection. Otherwise, it will be missing out on a half million potential customers. All that being said, even LRT would be god send over buses on the nation's worst freeway. True, true. Which is why if we were just building the Sepulveda pass segment, Heavy Rail would be more sensible. However, I think most here are in accord that in the larger picture, in order for this future line to reach its full potential, the whole Sylmar-LAX route must be built. With that in mind, Light Rail seems to be a more cost-efficient option over Heavy Rail, the latter costing almost twice as much ($13 Billion) as the former. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 8, 2013 12:33:26 GMT -8
I think ridership will be similar for the Sepulveda Line as the Purple Line exstension. So if the purple is worth it, then so is the Sepuveda Line. Besides, I would think that the purple line ridership depends on a Valley connection. Otherwise, it will be missing out on a half million potential customers. All that being said, even LRT would be god send over buses on the nation's worst freeway. True, true. Which is why if we were just building the Sepulveda pass segment, Heavy Rail would be more sensible. However, I think most here are in accord that in the larger picture, in order for this future line to reach its full potential, the whole Sylmar-LAX route must be built. With that in mind, Light Rail seems to be a more cost-efficient option over Heavy Rail, the latter costing almost twice as much ($13 Billion) as the former. We just need another politician with the cajones as Antonio to push another tax increase. Measure R can only carry LA so far, we need another .5% increase (costs the average Angeleno $25/year). If it's marketed properly, like Measure R was in 2008, compared to Measure J in 2012, it'll pass. People in LA are very supportive of tax increases dedicated to transportation, because nothing annoys residents here more than the lack of rail access. Dedicate $5B to this project, and then spread the $35B to the rest of LA County (over a projected 30 year life of the tax), though this could cannibalize funding for a future northern extension of the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood via West Hollywood, that also needs to be prioritized. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 9, 2013 9:56:06 GMT -8
Money is a red herring. We have the money, just not allocated to building subway. I think there will be enough popular support to shift highway construction funds to projects like the 405/JEM line within the next 10 years. We just spent $1.2 billion adding one carpool lane on the 405... the JEM line segment 1A as proposed by Transit Coalition - the tunnel portion from Westwood/Wilshire to Ventura/Sepulveda, roughly equal distance to the 405 north bound carpool lane, would have cost about $1.5 billion. To extend the line to Sylmar and LAX on either end will probably cost another $1.5 billion or so. But the point here is that the money is available if there is political will to make it happen. This argument is not fully fleshed when you consider the following; - to extend the line from Ventura to Sylmar will be over $2.0B per the East SFV Transit Corridor Study,
- to extend the line from Westwood to LAX will be another approx $2.5 for LRT
media.metro.net/board/Items/2012/11_november/20121114P&PItem21Handout.pdf
- In addition there's no highway projects in the Westside Sub-region that are funded by Measure R. The S.F. Valley highway projects funded with Measure R dollars are committed. So there's little likelihood this highway to transit funding swap will occur.
Thanks for the tip on cost of extension to LAX. Regarding my comment on funding, I wasn't referring to Measure R funds. The $1.2 billion for the 405 widening project wasn't pay by Measure R either. My point was to demonstrate that if there is political will for the project, money will be found - outside of Measure R. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 15, 2013 18:51:48 GMT -8
Just read through the thread, and it made me sick to my stomach to think that they could be thinking of a Bus lane on the 405 or thinking of a tunnel under the 405. They have to be nuts. Why not turn the tables on them, and pass a Robbins like bill that forbids any future expansion/construction on the 405. Just stop f**king with the freeway, for gods sake. It's awful enough without unending construction, (there's been what, 1.5 years construction free in the last 20 years?).
The only logical thing to do is a rail tunnel. Build it in phases.
Phase 1. The choke point tunnel.
This is a three stop, fully subterranean rail line, it goes from the Purple line at Wilshire/Westwood/UCLA to Ventura Blvd (stop at either Van Nuys or at Sepulveda), with a terminus at the Orange line. With the Purple line paying for most of the station at Wilshire/Westwood, you only have to pay for two stations, and the vast majority of the 5.5 miles of tunnel under the problem isn't going to run into expensive routing or relocation problems, it should be some of the cheapest tunneling possible to build.
Phase 2. The valley extension. The Van Nuys or Sepulveda rail line. could be built around the same time as the Phase 1, it may even finish first, but making it phase two may make it more likely to get matching funds,
Phase 3. Expo line and LAX extension. Expansion south, mostly all tunnel to the Expo Line and then to LAX and the Crenshaw/Green line/People mover station at Aviation. This would create a second transit hub for Los Angeles.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 16, 2013 5:34:58 GMT -8
Just read through the thread, and it made me sick to my stomach to think that they could be thinking of a Bus lane on the 405 or thinking of a tunnel under the 405. They have to be nuts. Why not turn the tables on them, and pass a Robbins like bill that forbids any future expansion/construction on the 405. Just stop f**k**g with the freeway, for gods sake. It's awful enough without unending construction, (there's been what, 1.5 years construction free in the last 20 years?). The only logical thing to do is a rail tunnel. Build it in phases. Phase 1. The choke point tunnel. This is a three stop, fully subterranean rail line, it goes from the Purple line at Wilshire/Westwood/UCLA to Ventura Blvd (stop at either Van Nuys or at Sepulveda), with a terminus at the Orange line. With the Purple line paying for most of the station at Wilshire/Westwood, you only have to pay for two stations, and the vast majority of the 5.5 miles of tunnel under the problem isn't going to run into expensive routing or relocation problems, it should be some of the cheapest tunneling possible to build. Phase 2. The valley extension. The Van Nuys or Sepulveda rail line. could be built around the same time as the Phase 1, it may even finish first, but making it phase two may make it more likely to get matching funds, Phase 3. Expo line and LAX extension. Expansion south, mostly all tunnel to the Expo Line and then to LAX and the Crenshaw/Green line/People mover station at Aviation. This would create a second transit hub for Los Angeles. I totally support that phasing. Great suggestion. Little nitpick is that the Westwood station wouldn't be essentially free, but if cutting back on station amenities and exits (e.g. just connect with stairs and elevators to the purple line platform) improves the financials and likelihood that the line gets built at all, that's fine with me. Minimal stations in the Valley are also fine. I would prefer an additional on campus UCLA stop, but I'm fine with something cheaper that will be built faster and without an unending campus debate about whether and where a stop should be. |
|
??
