|
Post by Quixote on Apr 12, 2016 10:43:07 GMT -8
I'm still clueless as to the rationale behind pusing back the Orange Line LRT conversion. It seems to me that this project, more than any other, would provide the biggest bang for the buck and therefore be very competitive for federal funds. The ridership is already there -- roughly 30,000 riders for an 18-mile BRT line. Replacing it with rail would likely double that figure, generating a very respectable ridership density of about 3,000 per mile.
There's no reason why we must wait some 40 years for this project to become reality. While it's great to have long-term vision, planning for 40 years ahead in the future is rather pointless when the needs/demands will inevitably change.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 12, 2016 11:23:20 GMT -8
The grade-separation improvements for the Orange Line are sorely needed. I'm still of the opinion that it hasn't reached its full potential as a BRT route, and if they can clean up the bottlenecks they can get pretty close to LRT ridership with a substantial cost savings.
I still say that what would be more interesting would be a revival of the old PE Owensmouth alignment with light rail. If light rail is the chosen technology for the Van Nuys route, it would just be a matter of branching west from Van Nuys at Sherman Way and terminating at Canoga (or turning north or south to either Chatsworth or Warner Center, wherever ridership is better). It would serve a new ridership, cost about the same as converting the Orange Line, and in case of a breakdown or collision riders could use either line as an alternate.
You could also probably add in a second phase by extending it east from Van Nuys to either Laurel Canyon or Lankershim to add a direct connection to the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 12, 2016 13:07:45 GMT -8
The grade-separation improvements for the Orange Line are sorely needed. I'm still of the opinion that it hasn't reached its full potential as a BRT route, and if they can clean up the bottlenecks they can get pretty close to LRT ridership with a substantial cost savings. I still say that what would be more interesting would be a revival of the old PE Owensmouth alignment with light rail. If light rail is the chosen technology for the Van Nuys route, it would just be a matter of branching west from Van Nuys at Sherman Way and terminating at Canoga (or turning north or south to either Chatsworth or Warner Center, wherever ridership is better). It would serve a new ridership, cost about the same as converting the Orange Line, and in case of a breakdown or collision riders could use either line as an alternate. You could also probably add in a second phase by extending it east from Van Nuys to either Laurel Canyon or Lankershim to add a direct connection to the Red Line. Note that the grade separation improvements are in the first 15 years. Current Orange Line ridership is only about 26k.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 12, 2016 15:04:20 GMT -8
I'm still clueless as to the rationale behind pusing back the Orange Line LRT conversion. It seems to me that this project, more than any other, would provide the biggest bang for the buck and therefore be very competitive for federal funds. The ridership is already there -- roughly 30,000 riders for an 18-mile BRT line. Replacing it with rail would likely double that figure, generating a very respectable ridership density of about 3,000 per mile. There's no reason why we must wait some 40 years for this project to become reality. While it's great to have long-term vision, planning for 40 years ahead in the future is rather pointless when the needs/demands will inevitably change. Because it's not actually a good bang for the buck. Like it or not, Orange line ridership is not going to disappear if it stays as BRT. The billion or so it will require to convert it to light rail could increase ridership much more significantly if it was spend on Van Nuy or Sepulveda for example. The grade separation projects on Orange line will improve the speed and capacity of the BRT and make it better. Bigger 80ft buses will also help. We can upgrade it to rail when we are done with West Santa Ana and Crenshaw extensions.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 12, 2016 16:27:09 GMT -8
I'm still clueless as to the rationale behind pusing back the Orange Line LRT conversion. It seems to me that this project, more than any other, would provide the biggest bang for the buck and therefore be very competitive for federal funds. The ridership is already there -- roughly 30,000 riders for an 18-mile BRT line. Replacing it with rail would likely double that figure, generating a very respectable ridership density of about 3,000 per mile. There's no reason why we must wait some 40 years for this project to become reality. While it's great to have long-term vision, planning for 40 years ahead in the future is rather pointless when the needs/demands will inevitably change. Because its not a good investment and you displace all the ridership for five years of construction. And you discard prematurely the money invested in the current infrastructure. Thirty years from now the bus way would be near the end of its usable life and it's a good opportunity to convert to rail then. And it isn't at capacity, ridership is less than Venice or half of Vermont ridership for example and orange line ridership is one third of Wilshire ridership. Saying it is at capacity is profoundly laughable, go ride Wilshire and see what capacity is actually like.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jun 6, 2016 23:46:07 GMT -8
All the Prop A and C money now is pretty much going to operating the system, so none is available like in the past for new construction. Are you sure about this? Given all the complaints surrounding Expo 2's speed and reliability, I was trying to think of what funding mechanisms we could use to get the Purple Line all the way to Santa Monica. It occurred to me that the only way to do so is by lifting the tunneling ban imposed on PA&C. Unlike Measure R/R2, PA&C has no sunset and doesn't outline specific projects to be built with the funds. So I decided to look up the terms as voted upon: www.metro.net/about/financebudget/taxes/
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jun 10, 2016 17:26:07 GMT -8
Metro staff are recommending that the ballot measure not have a sunset! It would be like Prop A/C with no expiration date. Projects like the Vermont Corridor HRT and the Green Line extension to Santa Monica along Lincoln are now part of the plan, albeit in the distant future. But that's beside the point. If this thing passes in November, we'd have even more resources to pull from to build the real game-changing projects. libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/160610_PBM1_Item_49.pdf
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 11, 2016 9:50:14 GMT -8
Metro staff are recommending that the ballot measure not have a sunset! It would be like Prop A/C with no expiration date. Projects like the Vermont Corridor HRT and the Green Line extension to Santa Monica along Lincoln are now part of the plan, albeit in the distant future. But that's beside the point. If this thing passes in November, we'd have even more resources to pull from to build the real game-changing projects. libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/160610_PBM1_Item_49.pdfAnd if we get a Democrat congress and president a national infrastructure Bank will be created that would be able to accelerate everything on the schedule even more.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 12, 2016 13:42:06 GMT -8
Metro staff are recommending that the ballot measure not have a sunset! It would be like Prop A/C with no expiration date. Projects like the Vermont Corridor HRT and the Green Line extension to Santa Monica along Lincoln are now part of the plan, albeit in the distant future. But that's beside the point. If this thing passes in November, we'd have even more resources to pull from to build the real game-changing projects. libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/160610_PBM1_Item_49.pdfAnd if we get a Democrat congress and president a national infrastructure Bank will be created that would be able to accelerate everything on the schedule even more. My god that would be a DREAM scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 12, 2016 14:51:07 GMT -8
2040s and 2060s?? Goodness. Who are planning these?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 12, 2016 15:31:52 GMT -8
2040s and 2060s?? Goodness. Who are planning these? It is much better than before. While there are a few projects that I don't like and a few missing that I'd like to see, I am def a yes voter. The tax money doesn't come in soon enough to build all at once and it would be much more expensive to do all at once due to lack iof construction resources. People in LA in the 60 and 70s failed to pass transit intiatives because they took too long. Now we are paying the price. I'd rather leave something for future generations. Even Expo took a good 25 years from when the ROW was purchased. A lot of the Friends for Expo supporters are gray beards. Glad they didn't have the attitude that I'll be retired before I ever see this.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Jun 12, 2016 19:46:17 GMT -8
2040s and 2060s?? Goodness. Who are planning these? Those projected delivery dates are based on using only local funds. Since this tax would theoretically continue in perpetuity, we could build these projects entirely by ourselves without assistance from the federal government, because the money would eventually come in at some point. Annual revenue is projected to be around $700-800 million. That revenue is technically supposed to be divvied up according to the pie chart (35% for transit capital), which in turn is further apportioned to each of the transit projects. Otherwise, there really isn't any other explanation as to why it would take 20-50 years for some projects to receive their funding.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 3, 2016 19:49:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Aug 3, 2016 21:09:27 GMT -8
Just want to point out that there are alooooot of assumptions built into that map. Mode choice, station locations, overall tax revenue generated, etc. Just take it with a mountain of salt, and think of it instead as a possible illustration of options, maybe-sorta.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Aug 4, 2016 12:24:17 GMT -8
Wasn't there also BRT on Reseda added last second at the behest of Garcetti, or am I misremembering?
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 1, 2016 19:48:10 GMT -8
So partially based on that calurbanist layout, I threw together one of my own that I'm planning on throwing into after effects to make a breakdown video of the projects. Before I do that, though, would you guys mind taking a quick gander to see if everything looks accurate to you? Obviously there are assumptions made about alignment, but I've made an effort to point these out and clarify the options in those cases. i.imgur.com/N5chCMJ.jpg
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 2, 2016 11:42:23 GMT -8
Oh my god thank you Nick. That calurbanist map was absolutely painful to look at, with all the zig-zagging diagonal rail lines.
Although a partially rail-upgraded, discontinuous Orange Line is going to be a nightmare. I still say they should keep it a single BRT route from Pasadena (via Eagle Rock/Colorado) through Canoga, with grade separation as needed (per the plan) to speed travel times. If people really want an east-west LRT in the Valley, they should think about re-using the old PE Owensmouth ROW along Sherman Way, which would integrate nicely with the Van Nuys LRT alternative as well as providing a second parallel route to Warner Center (and shorter transfer times to get to CSUN).
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 3, 2016 20:05:53 GMT -8
Haha no problem. I agree that the discontinuous orange line will be a bit of a mess, but that's how they have it specified in the plan, and I'm just trying to portray the plan as it stands for this particular map. (They DO mention that the new portion between NoHo and Pasadena will be built with an eye toward future upgrade to rail, though, just like the current orange line was -- but there just won't be funding for that upgrade as part of Measure M.)
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 25, 2016 17:30:15 GMT -8
OK, here's my video, "A Visual Breakdown of LA's Measure M". www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ewd4oUD9TIIt's still unlisted for now. I'm planning on posting it a few places tomorrow, but I'd love it if any of you guys could take a look at it first and see if anything jumps out at you as glaringly incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 26, 2016 11:49:10 GMT -8
This is great, the only thing I'd change is the explanation of the Regional connector, because it's hard for the layman to understand what it is accomplishing.
So don't say "downtown's second subway etc etc" because invoking subway terminology makes it sound like it's a separate entity from the four lines it is unifying.
Say: "The Regional connector will connect two east-west lines to create a single continuous east-west line from Santa Monica to East LA. It will also connect two north south lines to create a single continuous north-south line from Long Beach to Pasadena and beyond.
When it opens Metro transitions to a New York letter based naming system, and our East West line will be line E and a our north South line will be Line B."
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Sept 26, 2016 13:23:21 GMT -8
Saw it on Curbed, great work! Your graphics and editing skills are pretty dang slick.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Sept 26, 2016 16:17:24 GMT -8
This is great, the only thing I'd change is the explanation of the Regional connector, because it's hard for the layman to understand what it is accomplishing. So don't say "downtown's second subway etc etc" because invoking subway terminology makes it sound like it's a separate entity from the four lines it is unifying. Say: "The Regional connector will connect two east-west lines to create a single continuous east-west line from Santa Monica to East LA. It will also connect two north south lines to create a single continuous north-south line from Long Beach to Pasadena and beyond. When it opens Metro transitions to a New York letter based naming system, and our East West line will be line E and a our north South line will be Line B." Ah, damn, already posted . Good change, though! Saw it on Curbed, great work! Your graphics and editing skills are pretty dang slick. Thanks! I'm actually a documentary editor, so stuff like this is my day-to-day job.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Nov 9, 2016 6:12:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 10, 2016 0:49:10 GMT -8
Just a massive victory for LA and a huge loss for Damien Goodmon and John Mirsch, who did everything they could to defeat the measure. Couldn't be happier about its passing.
|
|