regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 27, 2011 23:34:37 GMT -8
Question of the week--405 Line South Terminus: can we reach Wilshire, Expo, or LAX with Measure R funds?
In terms of area boundaries, there's only one reference to this project in Measure R, in the Expenditure Plan: "San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection"--it can be as far or as short as you like, only that it is limited to $1.031 billion + plus whatever federal and state funds.
It would be nice to try to get it to LAX. But let's look at how much of a federal match we could get: the Westside Subway is getting 38% with a medium competitiveness rating, the Regional Connector 60% with a medium-high rating. Even if the 405 line scores better than Wilshire and as well as the Regional Connector, that's still $1.237 billion from the feds, for a total of $2.268 billion.
On the cost side, using the Westside Subway Draft EIS as a guide, $4.2 billion for a nine-mile, seven station subway extension would translate into $2.8 billion for a six-mile, four-five station subway as the Valley-Westside Rail Tunnel. Since there are only two deep bore stations (UCLA and Wilshire) plus one cut-and-cover station (Ventura), maybe subtract the equivalent of two deep bore stations at $200 million each: $2.4 billion.
It's going to be a stretch just to get it from Ventura to Wilshire. Getting it to Expo--which should be our goal--will be herculean. Beyond Expo may require money beyond Measure R. Even to Expo we would need to go cut-and-cover, at-grade, or elevated due to cost. North of Ventura could be covered by the Valley corridor funds, which are paltry, but it doesn't need to be deep bore tunnels; in fact, most of it could be at-grade, since Van Nuys is a wide arterial (and partially a former Pacific Electric ROW).
The two miles from Wilshire to Expo could be an extra $100-200 million.
We may need another large source of money in order to the eight miles from Expo to LAX; what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 28, 2011 12:03:02 GMT -8
We have to stop linking rail line terminal planning with funding. I know that sounds counter intuitive but it is the only way to ensure we have a functional system for the long run.
What I mean is that there should ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT that the south terminus is located at LAX. Whether or not we can secure the funding to build it that far is another story. We have to stop thinking about these rail lines as individual lines but as a network. Why on this earth would anyone plan to build this line short of LAX? It's this kind of "we can only plan as far as our money goes" mentality that brought us the Green line terminus short of Metrolink station in Norwalk. Or the Downtown Connector "gap". We only narrowly averted disaster with Crenshaw and Green line South Bay being different modes.
To me the question of southern terminus goes hand in hand with the push to link Van Nuys and Sepulveda corridor studies together. It's the flip side of the same coin. Of course in the short term, we can only expect the line to reach Westwood (if at all). But we SHOULD expect and in fact, DEMAND Metro put the Expo and LAX extensions into the build out plan. Anything short of that is rather shortsighted.
These projects have an inertia and momentum of their own. If the plan only goes to Westwood, then there will be more fights and more money wasted to get it to Expo. And then rinse and repeat for LAX. If we set the goal out to LAX from the beginning, we can start building political support and consensus. Transit advocates needs to make the extension to LAX appear as inevitable, not optional.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 28, 2011 18:15:57 GMT -8
I think it depends on the technology chosen:
Obviously LRT is the best choice, as it would probably make it to the Expo Line. It's a decent terminus for Phase I because riders on that line, as well the Purple Line, will at least have SOME way to get to the valley.
If it was to be a BRT line, it just might make it to LAX. But, of course, there are severe flaws with this. If it was to be a HRT line, it'll probably get as far as the Purple Line. But again, here are more flaws.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Feb 28, 2011 20:57:38 GMT -8
I saw the video of the Transit Coalition meeting and the proposal to link both the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects together. Cost was referenced. Sadly, those costs were woefully under-estimated. A tunnel will cost upwards of $500 million per mile. If the mountains will be crossed, that portion alone will eat up all the Measure R funds. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 28, 2011 23:04:22 GMT -8
I saw the video of the Transit Coalition meeting and the proposal to link both the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects together. Cost was referenced. Sadly, those costs were woefully under-estimated. A tunnel will cost upwards of $500 million per mile. If the mountains will be crossed, that portion alone will eat up all the Measure R funds. Ouch. Not necessarily. Each project is different. We say that the Purple Line is $500M a mile and people assume that means tunneling everywhere is $500M a mile. However, the Purple Line has more expensive staging and of course stations make up a pretty good chunk of that cost. With only 2 or 3 new underground stations, it may not be as much as one would normally think. Given that I don't see this project going anywhere south of Wilshire/Westwood any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 1, 2011 0:35:04 GMT -8
I saw the video of the Transit Coalition meeting and the proposal to link both the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects together. Cost was referenced. Sadly, those costs were woefully under-estimated. A tunnel will cost upwards of $500 million per mile. If the mountains will be crossed, that portion alone will eat up all the Measure R funds. Ouch. Trackman, the Eastside extension of the Gold Line managed to build tunnels for far less, about 80 million per mile if I remember correctly. Underground stations are very expensive (200 to 400 million), and that's why the Purple Line subway will be expensive. With no stations between Ventura and UCLA, the tunnel under the Sepulveda pass will be expensive, but no more expensive than the one lane being added to the 405, and it will be a double-track tunnel with capacity equal to all of the single-occupancy car lanes on the 405. That sounds like "value" to me, at least by Los Angeles standards. (In Spain they were building Metros, including underground stations every 1/2 to 1 mile, for under 100 million euros per mile, over the last few years. Too bad we can't build anything that efficiently.)
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 1, 2011 6:35:42 GMT -8
I stand by what I wrote. Further, no decision about how such a line would be constructed. So, how do you know that the mountains would be constructed with a single tunnel and being double tracked? Granted, it probably has some logic, but please cite how you know this?
Basic research into the costs of building rail is about like the following on a per mile basis: $25-$100 million for at-grade depending on terrain and crossing and property. $200 million for aerial. $400-$600 million for below grade
Yes, no stations would be a factor, but the video cited less that $200 million. That is not realistic. As I said, woefully underestimated.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 1, 2011 7:43:08 GMT -8
how much did the red line tunnel to North Hollywood cost?
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 1, 2011 10:11:02 GMT -8
I stand by what I wrote. Further, no decision about how such a line would be constructed. So, how do you know that the mountains would be constructed with a single tunnel and being double tracked? Granted, it probably has some logic, but please cite how you know this? Basic research into the costs of building rail is about like the following on a per mile basis: $25-$100 million for at-grade depending on terrain and crossing and property. $200 million for aerial. $400-$600 million for below grade Yes, no stations would be a factor, but the video cited less that $200 million. That is not realistic. As I said, woefully underestimated. Here's a link to the Metro Westside Subway Extension Draft EIS/EIR Cost and Financial Analysis: www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/Draft_EIS_EIR/tech-reports/26-Cost-and-Financial-Analysis.pdfOn Page 3-2, Table 3-1, there is a breakdown of the costs by guideway, stations, support facilities, etc. Note that the actual guideway (tunnel) cost is estimated at $831,688,000 for slightly less than 9 miles from Western to VA. That's less than $100 million/mile for the tunnel bore. Of course, there are other line items that have to be included, but the biggest one, stations, is minimized: if the only deep bore stations are UCLA and Westwood, that's two stations vs. seven on the Wilshire Subway. 2/7 of $1 billion is about $280 million. Then you reduce the number of vehicles, since run time will be every 6 minutes for the deep bore segment vs. 16 minutes from Western to VA, so assume $200 million. Pro-rating the rest of the $2 billion costs by route length (which will exaggerate the cost due to fewer stations needing extra professional services and ROW) gives $1.3 billion + $200 million vehicles + $300 million stations + $600 million guideway = $2.4 billion, which is what The Transit Coalition used as the basis for its estimate.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 1, 2011 11:16:32 GMT -8
I am hoping this project from Measure R funding can be studied from Van Nuys Metrolink to Expo Line.
Future extensions can be looked at south to LAX and north to Sylmar Metrolink
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Mar 1, 2011 17:12:45 GMT -8
I saw the video of the Transit Coalition meeting and the proposal to link both the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects together. Cost was referenced. Sadly, those costs were woefully under-estimated. A tunnel will cost upwards of $500 million per mile. If the mountains will be crossed, that portion alone will eat up all the Measure R funds. Ouch. First of all: This is a Vision. We don't have the cost estimates, even when asked. So, please don't pick on an idea that has many years to pick up traction. Our jobs is to get others to understand the Vision and to adopt it as their own. As Metro moves through the process, the agency will look at various options and something may be decided in the next two or three years. The reality is that Light Rail above and through the Sepulveda Pass is somewhere around $2.5 billion. Tunneling without stations for the dual tracks might be about $200 million per mile or $1.2 billion. Since this is just far out and there are lots of things subject to change, take the view that we need a first class solution and with a majority supporting the Vision, we can more the idea through the process.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 1, 2011 17:43:31 GMT -8
Thank you, my point was received. It will cost a lot. The Vision will cost more than what Measure R has identified for the corridor.
I agree the project is a good one. There are a lot of good ideas. A lot of them are here. I am more of an optimist that a pessimist. But pragmatic too. The initially cited figure was.... Too optimistic for me to not comment upon.
|
|