|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 3, 2017 16:41:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Feb 3, 2017 19:03:11 GMT -8
Looks like Concept 2 is the option transit folks will like the most. Concept 3 has nearly as much mixed-traffic running as bus lane running, which starts to stretch the entire definition of BRT. And of course, Concept 4 is hot garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 4, 2017 14:27:30 GMT -8
Concept 3 seems like a creation designed to draw fire and when killed by constituent feedback clears the way for one of the other options. A shame this isn't rail but better than nothing
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 4, 2017 15:54:22 GMT -8
Looks like Concept 2 is the option transit folks will like the most. Concept 3 has nearly as much mixed-traffic running as bus lane running, which starts to stretch the entire definition of BRT. And of course, Concept 4 is hot garbage. Just the fact that the 2nd highest bus corridor in the county is getting a "BRT" while significantly lower ridership corridors are getting light rail and subways is 'hot garbage' in itself. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Feb 4, 2017 16:48:04 GMT -8
I would guess that the issue is that there is no ROW, so your rail options are a mediocre at grade LRT thats expensive and not much better than cheaper BRT, or a subway or elevated rail that is extremely, extremely expensive. There are only 2 projects getting that level of investment on the Measure M list, being the 405 corridor and the Crenshaw northern extension, both of which are arguably more important.
Also, when you look at the 'sub area equity' argument, the Vermont corridor is about 2 miles away from the future Crenshaw line and next to the Silver line BRT. The Gateway cities, Valley, Pomona etc could rightfully make arguments about their share of the pie if Vermont was another huge corridor investment. The Gateway and South Bay cities alone protesting Measure M got us a 70% pass on Measure M, so maybe you could argue that they should have risked it more and given Vermont a bigger budget, but that seems like a hindsight argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 4, 2017 17:20:37 GMT -8
I would guess that the issue is that there is no ROW, so your rail options are a mediocre at grade LRT thats expensive and not much better than cheaper BRT, or a subway or elevated rail that is extremely, extremely expensive. There are only 2 projects getting that level of investment on the Measure M list, being the 405 corridor and the Crenshaw northern extension, both of which are arguably more important. Also, when you look at the 'sub area equity' argument, the Vermont corridor is about 2 miles away from the future Crenshaw line and next to the Silver line BRT. The Gateway cities, Valley, Pomona etc could rightfully make arguments about their share of the pie if Vermont was another huge corridor investment. The Gateway and South Bay cities alone protesting Measure M got us a 70% pass on Measure M, so maybe you could argue that they should have risked it more and given Vermont a bigger budget, but that seems like a hindsight argument. An LRT would have to be subway north of Gage Ave anyway; and really, you could make that kind of argument about any rail line that's not running old ROW. Really, at-grade LRT would work perfectly fine if LADOT used actual preemption and not the useless pseudo-priority defined by Metro in the grade crossing policy document. I don't know the details of how funding is laid out, but it seems ridiculous for every city to expect multi-billion dollar rail projects when they don't have a proportionate number of transit ridership. Perhaps giving the Gateway cities a bigger portion of money for street and bike improvements would be a good a compromise. Gypping Vermont just because the Gateway cities think they deserve their own Gold Line isn't an effective use of their tax money, as counter-intuitive as it sounds. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 6, 2017 15:09:42 GMT -8
I hate it when people immediately make this a bus vs. rail debate. Vermont needs BOTH. A high quality BRT complements any underground rail line. The reverse is even more so... if Vermont is only getting rail, it will be a travesty to let the bus continue to crawl in mixed traffic.
If Metro goes with option 2, then it is easy to convert the center running BRT south of Gage to a rail line at some point in the future (and underground north of Gage). Keep the eye on the big picture here...
Measure M provide enough funding to get BRT relatively soon, which has real needs and will change travel patterns thus bolstering the case for rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 6, 2017 22:49:57 GMT -8
I wonder if some of the funds generated from the 110 express lanes can be used to partially fund this and/or the future HRT project?
I definitely think it's something worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 7, 2017 17:41:06 GMT -8
Depends on if Vermont and 110 is considered the same corridor... I'd guess someone will challenge that in court if Metro does use revenue from the HOT lane to fund Vermont subway.
The HOT lane revenue being used to fund Silver line service is clearly being used on the same corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Feb 9, 2017 12:34:59 GMT -8
I hate it when people immediately make this a bus vs. rail debate. Vermont needs BOTH. A high quality BRT complements any underground rail line. The reverse is even more so... if Vermont is only getting rail, it will be a travesty to let the bus continue to crawl in mixed traffic. If Metro goes with option 2, then it is easy to convert the center running BRT south of Gage to a rail line at some point in the future (and underground north of Gage). Keep the eye on the big picture here... Measure M provide enough funding to get BRT relatively soon, which has real needs and will change travel patterns thus bolstering the case for rail. Except it doesn't work that way. This BRT is designed to replace rail, not complement it. The "convert to rail" arguments holds little credibility until we actually see the Orange Line converted. Until then, I'll take idea of converting it to rail later with a grain of salt and will always assume that the mode chosen will be its mode indefinitely. The fact is, if BRT is put on this corridor Vermont won't get rail until I die of old age at best(I'm 23). I'll gladly eat my words if it actually happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 9, 2017 20:56:10 GMT -8
Metro should've canned this idea and stuck with a Red Line extension to Expo.
It's still both a South L.A. and mid-city project, so it would've played well politically too.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 10, 2017 11:42:57 GMT -8
As probably the only Koreatown resident here I'd be thrilled to see Option 2 happen. The 754/204 are overcrowded as is so I usually avoid those lines for the 757/207 (closer to my apartment). I'd take a high quality BRT (exclusive ROW, level boarding, off board fare collection gold standard BRT anyone?) today while I can still afford to live in Los Angeles over a LRT/subway in 100 years after we're long dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 13, 2018 18:16:20 GMT -8
|
|
