|
Post by LineDrive on Jul 22, 2018 17:24:57 GMT -8
I’ve registered and signed up and haven’t had my registration approved and it’s been well over a week.
And for some reason you can post as a guest on some areas but not others, so this is off topic for this board - maybe someone can move it to the CRENSHAW board:
It pains me to see the way LA Metro does things. Pains me. There is absolutely positively ZERO excuse for any part of this line to be at grade. The fact there is any GREEN on that map is mind numbing. This is not Portland we’re talking about. This is LA. These lines need peak efficiency and for that they need to be fully separated from vehicle traffic.
Of all the things that pains me - the idea of having the terminus an AT GRADE at Hollywood and Highland? You kidding me. On a strip like that you’re gonna have at grade rail? You’re kidding right. Build a subway station below the heavy rail stop. My god. I get using at grade below Wilshire but anywhere north of Wilshire and ESPECIALLY Santa Monica points North - should be Subway.
If costs are SUBSTANTIALLY different then I can at least understand every grade option being looked at, but considering the Fairfax option is primarily all subway and it only cost 6% more then the next closest option - that tells me it’s more penny pinching.
As for what option should ultimately be choosen: First eliminate Vermont from the discussion - I don’t even understand why it was included here - if the Red Line was light rail then I’d get it but Vermont is destined for heavy rail subway in 2085, so it shouldn’t have been included in the study. So that leaves 4 options on the table.
Those more closely familiar with the dynamics of this area of LA can answer these better - but which route: a) Most densely traveled b) Most densely populated c) Most job, tourist destinations d) Is growing the fastest
What La Brea has going for it is that it’s the shortest aka most direct route and it’s the cheapest, also meaning there is room for grade adjustments. (Also there is the added bonus that La Brea keeps Santa Monica OPEN for a rail line way way after we’re all gone) BUT, it’s the least dense of all the routes - shouldn’t that be one of the most important metrics
I think Fairfax might have an uphill climb for the simple fact that a lot of these decision makers at Metro are short sighted and they’ll see it as the highest price and instantly be prejudice against it. However it has destinations such as CBS that obviously are going attract a lot of riders.
La Cienega is a formidable option because of it perhaps attracting the most riders AND it keeps the line in West Hollywood more and we all know how much politics plays into this stuff with Metro & WH voted for the Measure overwhelmingly AND WH has said they’re willing to contribute a lot more money to the project then is required; which to me is a big deal.
San Vicente goes in the same general area and again makes WH happy, attracting presumably the most riders while costing slightly less.
BUT, here is a MAJOR MAJOR issue I have with the final two options. And it’s so typical Metro it hurts. What’s the issue? And I’m surprised no one has mentioned it: CONNECTION WITH THE PURPLE LINE. The purple line will be the signature route of Metro and many many riders on Crenshaw north will use it to and from for transfers to Purple. But if I’m reading these maps correctly the planned location of a Crenshaw North Wilshire station for the San Vicente & La Cienega options is about 1500 feet EAST of the planned “Wilshire/La Cienega” Purple Line station at 8485 Wilshire Blvd. That’s a considerable distance. Now if they are planning a connection via an underground walkway or something then fine. But if they’re just expecting commuters to simply exit the trains, leave the fare zone and then walk to the other station and re enter the fare zone then that’s simply unacceptable and not fitting of a world class transit system. It’s the same pathetic mistake they’re making with the Expo Crenshaw station where you have to come above ground, leave the fare zone and cross the street to re-enter the fare zone for the expo line
Back to the Purple line, can someone explain to me WHY on every option except Fairfax they have the connection with the purple line listed as Aerial stations? You would think since the Wiltshire corridor is dense enough & important enough for everything to be underground that the connecting Crenshaw line station would also be put underground. I think it looks better as well, a modern, two line transfer subway station on the most important corridor in the city.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 22, 2018 19:09:25 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I am not sure if this board is being administered/managed anymore. The board administrator has not posted for over 2 years and has not been online for almost the same amount of time. Unless this administration issue gets fixed, I wonder if we should only post in sections that allow guests to post?
On your point about the Purple Line connection station locations, I don't think I see anywhere where the locations are set in stone, there are just some general locations. Those options are aerial because the rest of the line is aerial. To make it underground, since there will already be an existing underground line and station, you would need to get a TBM to tunnel under the Purple Line to get across Wilshire, and it doesn't make sense to tunnel just to cross Wilshire unless you are going to keep tunneling.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 23, 2018 6:37:29 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I am not sure if this board is being administered/managed anymore. The board administrator has not posted for over 2 years and has not been online for almost the same amount of time. Unless this administration issue gets fixed, I wonder if we should only post in sections that allow guests to post? On your point about the Purple Line connection station locations, I don't think I see anywhere where the locations are set in stone, there are just some general locations. Those options are aerial because the rest of the line is aerial. To make it underground, since there will already be an existing underground line and station, you would need to get a TBM to tunnel under the Purple Line to get across Wilshire, and it doesn't make sense to tunnel just to cross Wilshire unless you are going to keep tunneling. This board is kind of dead but even when it was busier such things were hit and miss and could take a while. San Vicente to the east end of the purple line platform is only one block. Maybe 500 ft. I can see metro constructing a second entrance for Crenshaw riders to access the station, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had riders exit the system and re-enter. Hopefully a tunnel instead. But this study is just conceptual and the fact that such details are not included is to be expected. How and precisely where connections are made is not within the scope of this study, just that they are there.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 23, 2018 7:29:09 GMT -8
I’ve registered and signed up and haven’t had my registration approved and it’s been well over a week. And for some reason you can post as a guest on some areas but not others, so this is off topic for this board - maybe someone can move it to the CRENSHAW board: It pains me to see the way LA Metro does things. Pains me. There is absolutely positively ZERO excuse for any part of this line to be at grade. The fact there is any GREEN on that map is mind numbing. This is not Portland we’re talking about. This is LA. These lines need peak efficiency and for that they need to be fully separated from vehicle traffic. Of all the things that pains me - the idea of having the terminus an AT GRADE at Hollywood and Highland? You kidding me. On a strip like that you’re gonna have at grade rail? You’re kidding right. Build a subway station below the heavy rail stop. My god. I get using at grade below Wilshire but anywhere north of Wilshire and ESPECIALLY Santa Monica points North - should be Subway. If costs are SUBSTANTIALLY different then I can at least understand every grade option being looked at, but considering the Fairfax option is primarily all subway and it only cost 6% more then the next closest option - that tells me it’s more penny pinching. As for what option should ultimately be choosen: First eliminate Vermont from the discussion - I don’t even understand why it was included here - if the Red Line was light rail then I’d get it but Vermont is destined for heavy rail subway in 2085, so it shouldn’t have been included in the study. So that leaves 4 options on the table. Those more closely familiar with the dynamics of this area of LA can answer these better - but which route: a) Most densely traveled b) Most densely populated c) Most job, tourist destinations d) Is growing the fastest What La Brea has going for it is that it’s the shortest aka most direct route and it’s the cheapest, also meaning there is room for grade adjustments. (Also there is the added bonus that La Brea keeps Santa Monica OPEN for a rail line way way after we’re all gone) BUT, it’s the least dense of all the routes - shouldn’t that be one of the most important metrics I think Fairfax might have an uphill climb for the simple fact that a lot of these decision makers at Metro are short sighted and they’ll see it as the highest price and instantly be prejudice against it. However it has destinations such as CBS that obviously are going attract a lot of riders. La Cienega is a formidable option because of it perhaps attracting the most riders AND it keeps the line in West Hollywood more and we all know how much politics plays into this stuff with Metro & WH voted for the Measure overwhelmingly AND WH has said they’re willing to contribute a lot more money to the project then is required; which to me is a big deal. San Vicente goes in the same general area and again makes WH happy, attracting presumably the most riders while costing slightly less. BUT, here is a MAJOR MAJOR issue I have with the final two options. And it’s so typical Metro it hurts. What’s the issue? And I’m surprised no one has mentioned it: CONNECTION WITH THE PURPLE LINE. The purple line will be the signature route of Metro and many many riders on Crenshaw north will use it to and from for transfers to Purple. But if I’m reading these maps correctly the planned location of a Crenshaw North Wilshire station for the San Vicente & La Cienega options is about 1500 feet EAST of the planned “Wilshire/La Cienega” Purple Line station at 8485 Wilshire Blvd. That’s a considerable distance. Now if they are planning a connection via an underground walkway or something then fine. But if they’re just expecting commuters to simply exit the trains, leave the fare zone and then walk to the other station and re enter the fare zone then that’s simply unacceptable and not fitting of a world class transit system. It’s the same pathetic mistake they’re making with the Expo Crenshaw station where you have to come above ground, leave the fare zone and cross the street to re-enter the fare zone for the expo line Back to the Purple line, can someone explain to me WHY on every option except Fairfax they have the connection with the purple line listed as Aerial stations? You would think since the Wiltshire corridor is dense enough & important enough for everything to be underground that the connecting Crenshaw line station would also be put underground. I think it looks better as well, a modern, two line transfer subway station on the most important corridor in the city. Sure if money is no object this makes sense. The reality is that construction costs are soaring, the Feds are cutting support and voters are close to rejecting the gas tax increase that will blow a hole in Metro's plans.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 23, 2018 8:44:32 GMT -8
I’ve registered and signed up and haven’t had my registration approved and it’s been well over a week. It pains me to see the way LA Metro does things. Pains me. There is absolutely positively ZERO excuse for any part of this line to be at grade. The fact there is any GREEN on that map is mind numbing. This is not Portland we’re talking about. This is LA. These lines need peak efficiency and for that they need to be fully separated from vehicle traffic. There's green because San Vicente is an extremely wide blvd, and those green sections can be built for 350 million per mile less than the alternative. That said, as the documentation indicates, even the at grade sections will result in intersections with some F loss of service, much more than the ESFV, for example. Actually, an east west at grade terminus at hollywood highland is conceptually quite interesting, it would necessarily impose a road diet on the pedestrian insanity that is the four block stretch between la brea and Highland, or a complete street closure. I could easily see it becoming like third street in Santa Monica. This is the most unlikely option, but their due diligence requires them to consider it. You're making a rather wrong assumption, the fairfax per-mile cost is extraordinarily high, the 6% difference is only because it is much shorter than the la cienega and san vicente routes. Vermont will be eliminated quickly, but since the purpose is a north-south route and this is the shortest possible north south route, its their due diligence to study the feasability. Note that it is still suggesting 77,000 boardings a day, These are different boardings than the other four options, but clearly a lot of the boardings are from demand on the Vermont corrirdor by the ridership for a north south route La Brea and La Cienega are the most densely traveled roads because they are the widest. Fairfax has more bus ridership because the bus line there terminates at WLA transit center and provices north south access through the cahuenga pass. But Fairfax has a lot of severely constrained sections of narrow streets (which is why it is so expensive) Most Densely populated and job tourist destinations are la cienega and san vicente options. Fairfax has the Grove and Park La Brea, but CBS television city is being closed and will no longer be a major jobs center for the city. La Brea is growing the fastest, with tons mixed use development all along the street for the last ten years and in the future. CBS is being sold and closed, it will be redeveloped as high end luxury housing. Fairfax has sections of very narrow streets and also tricky track geometry and station placement issues. Additionally, it requires a subway track beneath the purple line station. that means excavation down 150 feet or more. That means the single Fairfax transfer station will probably cost 850-1,000 million dollars, just for that one station. Both La Cienega and San Vicente are indeed formiddable options, both will have the most political support and the most political opposition. Yes, if Aerial, the transfer from an 40 foot high station to a 60 foot deep station more or less sucks. that is a given. However, aerial stations cost about 150-250 million to build and can be built in about two years, once construction starts. Subway stations cost between 500 million and over a billion and take about eight years to build (three years of utility relocation, five years of construction). Building stations deeper costs more money and takes longer, and subway stations under the purple line will cost the most and take the longest. Aerial stations are the most cost effective option.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2018 9:37:46 GMT -8
Of all the things that pains me - the idea of having the terminus an AT GRADE at Hollywood and Highland? You kidding me. On a strip like that you’re gonna have at grade rail? You’re kidding right. Build a subway station below the heavy rail stop. My god. The at-grade northern terminus is being studied only for the La Brea option. I think the idea is that, if it's coming up La Brea, it could feasibly come to the surface, turn right (eastward), and then terminate west of Hollywood and Highland. Not at the intersection of Hollywood and Highland. I do agree that the idea is absurd. But it's just an alternative to study. I love the idea of a subway under Fairfax. Not so much for Television City: the subway would serve the Jewish Fairfax District, Melrose, Farmers Market, and The Grove, before hitting WeHo's Eastside and then Hollywood. But I also know that either of the West Hollywood routes would be very popular. That area is dense and subway-ready.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 23, 2018 9:51:25 GMT -8
BUT, here is a MAJOR MAJOR issue I have with the final two options. And it’s so typical Metro it hurts. What’s the issue? And I’m surprised no one has mentioned it: CONNECTION WITH THE PURPLE LINE. The purple line will be the signature route of Metro and many many riders on Crenshaw north will use it to and from for transfers to Purple. But if I’m reading these maps correctly the planned location of a Crenshaw North Wilshire station for the San Vicente & La Cienega options is about 1500 feet EAST of the planned “Wilshire/La Cienega” Purple Line station at 8485 Wilshire Blvd. That’s a considerable distance. Now if they are planning a connection via an underground walkway or something then fine. But if they’re just expecting commuters to simply exit the trains, leave the fare zone and then walk to the other station and re enter the fare zone then that’s simply unacceptable and not fitting of a world class transit system. It’s the same pathetic mistake they’re making with the Expo Crenshaw station where you have to come above ground, leave the fare zone and cross the street to re-enter the fare zone for the expo line What really pisses me off is the lack of foresight when the Purple Line was being planned. If Metro would plan the system rather than individual lines, they would've chosen a station location that better works for both lines. But now we're stuck with a station at Wilshire/La Cienega, four full blocks from Wilshire/San Vicente, which probably will be the best place for the Crenshaw Line to cross Wilshire. So what could be done? Here are some options: - Build the Wilshire/La Cienega station aerial, with the line crossing over a bunch of very expensive properties south of Wilshire.
- Build the Wilshire/La Cienega station aerial, with the line turning west above Wilshire to La Cienega, then north, and then back to San Vicente.
- Build the Wilshire/La Cienega station underground under the Purple Line, by snaking a subway segment from Fairfax/Olympic to Cedars Sinai.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 23, 2018 19:54:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 27, 2018 7:08:43 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I am not sure if this board is being administered/managed anymore. The board administrator has not posted for over 2 years and has not been online for almost the same amount of time. Unless this administration issue gets fixed, I wonder if we should only post in sections that allow guests to post? On your point about the Purple Line connection station locations, I don't think I see anywhere where the locations are set in stone, there are just some general locations. Those options are aerial because the rest of the line is aerial. To make it underground, since there will already be an existing underground line and station, you would need to get a TBM to tunnel under the Purple Line to get across Wilshire, and it doesn't make sense to tunnel just to cross Wilshire unless you are going to keep tunneling. This board is kind of dead but even when it was busier such things were hit and miss and could take a while. San Vicente to the east end of the purple line platform is only one block. Maybe 500 ft. I can see metro constructing a second entrance for Crenshaw riders to access the station, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had riders exit the system and re-enter. Hopefully a tunnel instead. But this study is just conceptual and the fact that such details are not included is to be expected. How and precisely where connections are made is not within the scope of this study, just that they are there. So there is indeed a knockout panel at Gale meaning the transfer to the purple line La Cienega station could be as short as 500ft.
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jul 28, 2018 2:38:14 GMT -8
Here is the problem with Metro. They essentially build bandaids all over LA. Take the orange line for example (granted hands were tied) but they built a BRT that’s overloaded now and needs to be upgraded when just building the correct thing from the start would have been better.
Now they’re doing it again with this line. They need to be willing to pay more for the worthwhile projects. They need too.
The best route is clearly Fairfax because it’s fairly quick like Labrea while also stopping at important destinations like La Cienega ... and some might look at the subway alignment as a negative but frankly in that part of LA everything should be underground for the most part ... so it’s a positive all around.
If they do the disappointing thing and go with an aerial route on Labrea then I think that’s the straw to break the camels back that something has to be done
If you have to go to the voters to an if it’s okay to change how the money is spent then so be it.
Do it right the first time and ridership will drastically increase. Hell the potential for LA as a mass transit region is probably the most untapped in the world.
Someone needs to say let’s do this right, let’s do this by need. Not by everyone gets a piece of the pie. Do whatever has to be done.
I know that’s easier said then done. But with enough political will I’m willing to bet there is a way. For starters, scratch expanding the gold line to the inland empire, scratch one of the two east LA extensions. Scratch any BRT plans. Raise fares slightly. Pursue more private public partnerships. And lobby Sacramento for more financing.... If the Democrats take control of Washington you might see an infusion of money as well but you can’t rely on that.
I know all those things are... easier said then done. But it must be done. That’s the point. There are critical details for these lines that will make the difference between band aid fixes and actual improvements to the quality of life for Los Angelinos. They are things such as trenching/underground/aerial portions of Expo that’s not grade separated, underground Expo/Blue from Washington to MetroCenter, make the Van Nuys line entirely grade separated while guaranteeing it merges with the Sepulveda line to make one cohesive line, make almost the entire Crenshaw North line underground. Take care of short extensions that make a huge difference: Green Line to Norwalk ML, Heavy Rail to Arts district, Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, Purple Line to Santa Monica ...
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 28, 2018 7:07:14 GMT -8
Here is the problem with Metro. They essentially build bandaids all over LA. Take the orange line for example (granted hands were tied) but they built a BRT that’s overloaded now and needs to be upgraded when just building the correct thing from the start would have been better. Now they’re doing it again with this line. They need to be willing to pay more for the worthwhile projects. They need too. The best route is clearly Fairfax because it’s fairly quick like Labrea while also stopping at important destinations like La Cienega ... and some might look at the subway alignment as a negative but frankly in that part of LA everything should be underground for the most part ... so it’s a positive all around. If they do the disappointing thing and go with an aerial route on Labrea then I think that’s the straw to break the camels back that something has to be done If you have to go to the voters to an if it’s okay to change how the money is spent then so be it. Do it right the first time and ridership will drastically increase. Hell the potential for LA as a mass transit region is probably the most untapped in the world. Someone needs to say let’s do this right, let’s do this by need. Not by everyone gets a piece of the pie. Do whatever has to be done. I know that’s easier said then done. But with enough political will I’m willing to bet there is a way. For starters, scratch expanding the gold line to the inland empire, scratch one of the two east LA extensions. Scratch any BRT plans. Raise fares slightly. Pursue more private public partnerships. And lobby Sacramento for more financing.... If the Democrats take control of Washington you might see an infusion of money as well but you can’t rely on that. I know all those things are... easier said then done. But it must be done. That’s the point. There are critical details for these lines that will make the difference between band aid fixes and actual improvements to the quality of life for Los Angelinos. They are things such as trenching/underground/aerial portions of Expo that’s not grade separated, underground Expo/Blue from Washington to MetroCenter, make the Van Nuys line entirely grade separated while guaranteeing it merges with the Sepulveda line to make one cohesive line, make almost the entire Crenshaw North line underground. Take care of short extensions that make a huge difference: Green Line to Norwalk ML, Heavy Rail to Arts district, Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, Purple Line to Santa Monica ... I disagree with building expensive rail for a few as opposed to less expensive rail for many more and think that metro is actually getting it right. They didn’t get it right with expo, but they didn’t have money to do better. Plus all the local rail advocates were telling them that running trains in traffic was fine.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 28, 2018 17:51:37 GMT -8
Here is the problem with Metro. They essentially build bandaids all over LA. Take the orange line for example (granted hands were tied) but they built a BRT that’s overloaded now and needs to be upgraded when just building the correct thing from the start would have been better. Now they’re doing it again with this line. They need to be willing to pay more for the worthwhile projects. They need too. The best route is clearly Fairfax because it’s fairly quick like Labrea while also stopping at important destinations like La Cienega ... and some might look at the subway alignment as a negative but frankly in that part of LA everything should be underground for the most part ... so it’s a positive all around. If they do the disappointing thing and go with an aerial route on Labrea then I think that’s the straw to break the camels back that something has to be done If you have to go to the voters to an if it’s okay to change how the money is spent then so be it. Do it right the first time and ridership will drastically increase. Hell the potential for LA as a mass transit region is probably the most untapped in the world. Someone needs to say let’s do this right, let’s do this by need. Not by everyone gets a piece of the pie. Do whatever has to be done. I know that’s easier said then done. But with enough political will I’m willing to bet there is a way. For starters, scratch expanding the gold line to the inland empire, scratch one of the two east LA extensions. Scratch any BRT plans. Raise fares slightly. Pursue more private public partnerships. And lobby Sacramento for more financing.... If the Democrats take control of Washington you might see an infusion of money as well but you can’t rely on that. I know all those things are... easier said then done. But it must be done. That’s the point. There are critical details for these lines that will make the difference between band aid fixes and actual improvements to the quality of life for Los Angelinos. They are things such as trenching/underground/aerial portions of Expo that’s not grade separated, underground Expo/Blue from Washington to MetroCenter, make the Van Nuys line entirely grade separated while guaranteeing it merges with the Sepulveda line to make one cohesive line, make almost the entire Crenshaw North line underground. Take care of short extensions that make a huge difference: Green Line to Norwalk ML, Heavy Rail to Arts district, Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, Purple Line to Santa Monica ... The Gold Line extension to Montclair has $1 billion in funding from Measure M and is expected to carry 17,770 riders per day. The Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT has $270 million in Measure M funding and is expected to carry 11,000 to 18,000 riders. The Fairfax alternative carries 1,500 more riders than the La Brea alternative and costs $1.7 billion more. Not only would cancelling these projects still leave half a billion to be filled, nobody would agree that it is cost-effective to cancel funding for 30,000-40,000 riders to build a project to accommodate 1500 more riders. The projects have a lot of political support and are already part of the Olympics 28 by 28 plan. The Gold Line particularly has a lot of support from the state as it runs through many districts. It is built by a separate political entity, the Gold Line Construction Authority, via state legislation sponsored by Adam Schiff (now a well-known US Congressman), because they did not trust Metro with the project. Measure M also uses a population-based allocation formula, so funds should stay within their subregions. Since San Gabriel Valley is 15-16% of the county population, they get 15-16% of Measure M funds. In no reality will you get more funding for projects by taking away projects promised to others, so you should stop dreaming of cancelling any projects to get extra funding. It is political suicide to propose breaking promises with other populations in order to fund other projects in areas far away. In terms of lobbying Sacramento for more funding, they already received the lions share of SB1 funding in the first SB1 funding round, about 26 percent and $1.8 billion total. Sacramento won’t be able to provide similar funding in the future if Proposition 6 passes and repeals the gas tax. They already are pursuing many private partnerships and I don’t think anybody would ever agree that raising fares while ridership is dropping is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 28, 2018 19:34:57 GMT -8
Here is the problem with Metro. They essentially build bandaids all over LA. Take the orange line for example (granted hands were tied) but they built a BRT that’s overloaded now and needs to be upgraded when just building the correct thing from the start would have been better. Now they’re doing it again with this line. They need to be willing to pay more for the worthwhile projects. They need too. The best route is clearly Fairfax because it’s fairly quick like Labrea while also stopping at important destinations like La Cienega ... and some might look at the subway alignment as a negative but frankly in that part of LA everything should be underground for the most part ... so it’s a positive all around. If they do the disappointing thing and go with an aerial route on Labrea then I think that’s the straw to break the camels back that something has to be done If you have to go to the voters to an if it’s okay to change how the money is spent then so be it. Do it right the first time and ridership will drastically increase. Hell the potential for LA as a mass transit region is probably the most untapped in the world. Someone needs to say let’s do this right, let’s do this by need. Not by everyone gets a piece of the pie. Do whatever has to be done. I know that’s easier said then done. But with enough political will I’m willing to bet there is a way. For starters, scratch expanding the gold line to the inland empire, scratch one of the two east LA extensions. Scratch any BRT plans. Raise fares slightly. Pursue more private public partnerships. And lobby Sacramento for more financing.... If the Democrats take control of Washington you might see an infusion of money as well but you can’t rely on that. I know all those things are... easier said then done. But it must be done. That’s the point. There are critical details for these lines that will make the difference between band aid fixes and actual improvements to the quality of life for Los Angelinos. They are things such as trenching/underground/aerial portions of Expo that’s not grade separated, underground Expo/Blue from Washington to MetroCenter, make the Van Nuys line entirely grade separated while guaranteeing it merges with the Sepulveda line to make one cohesive line, make almost the entire Crenshaw North line underground. Take care of short extensions that make a huge difference: Green Line to Norwalk ML, Heavy Rail to Arts district, Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, Purple Line to Santa Monica ... The Gold Line extension to Montclair has $1 billion in funding from Measure M and is expected to carry 17,770 riders per day. The Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT has $270 million in Measure M funding and is expected to carry 11,000 to 18,000 riders. The Fairfax alternative carries 1,500 more riders than the La Brea alternative and costs $1.7 billion more. Not only would cancelling these projects still leave half a billion to be filled, nobody would agree that it is cost-effective to cancel funding for 30,000-40,000 riders to build a project to accommodate 1500 more riders. The projects have a lot of political support and are already part of the Olympics 28 by 28 plan. The Gold Line particularly has a lot of support from the state as it runs through many districts. It is built by a separate political entity, the Gold Line Construction Authority, via state legislation sponsored by Adam Schiff (now a well-known US Congressman), because they did not trust Metro with the project. Measure M also uses a population-based allocation formula, so funds should stay within their subregions. Since San Gabriel Valley is 15-16% of the county population, they get 15-16% of Measure M funds. In no reality will you get more funding for projects by taking away projects promised to others, so you should stop dreaming of cancelling any projects to get extra funding. It is political suicide to propose breaking promises with other populations in order to fund other projects in areas far away. In terms of lobbying Sacramento for more funding, they already received the lions share of SB1 funding in the first SB1 funding round, about 26 percent and $1.8 billion total. Sacramento won’t be able to provide similar funding in the future if Proposition 6 passes and repeals the gas tax. They already are pursuing many private partnerships and I don’t think anybody would ever agree that raising fares while ridership is dropping is a good idea. This
Good analysis Numble. I would also concur with JerardWright analysis in the other thread that Fairfax isn't dead and could be the route that all parties sort of live with. Ironically, perhaps, Fairfax is almost in the middle of the region and could split the differences and be supported by those who hate the other options due to how those options are either built or the added expense that people will want to incorporate.
Without an Infrastructure Bank, I'm not sure when Metro ever gets the 4 or 5 billion, or whatever this thing will eventually need.
One last thing about the Crenshaw extension and Fairfax since I can't post in the other thread, using Fairfax would not preclude a future line that would extend south on Santa Monica blvd from Fairfax and would actually provide possible future benefits to WeHo. I suppose it would depend on the frequency of the trains which I haven't really looked at but Metro could certainly take this into account and factor what future service from Fairfax and south on Santa Monica would entail.
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jul 29, 2018 3:00:46 GMT -8
Here is the problem with Metro. They essentially build bandaids all over LA. Take the orange line for example (granted hands were tied) but they built a BRT that’s overloaded now and needs to be upgraded when just building the correct thing from the start would have been better. Now they’re doing it again with this line. They need to be willing to pay more for the worthwhile projects. They need too. The best route is clearly Fairfax because it’s fairly quick like Labrea while also stopping at important destinations like La Cienega ... and some might look at the subway alignment as a negative but frankly in that part of LA everything should be underground for the most part ... so it’s a positive all around. If they do the disappointing thing and go with an aerial route on Labrea then I think that’s the straw to break the camels back that something has to be done If you have to go to the voters to an if it’s okay to change how the money is spent then so be it. Do it right the first time and ridership will drastically increase. Hell the potential for LA as a mass transit region is probably the most untapped in the world. Someone needs to say let’s do this right, let’s do this by need. Not by everyone gets a piece of the pie. Do whatever has to be done. I know that’s easier said then done. But with enough political will I’m willing to bet there is a way. For starters, scratch expanding the gold line to the inland empire, scratch one of the two east LA extensions. Scratch any BRT plans. Raise fares slightly. Pursue more private public partnerships. And lobby Sacramento for more financing.... If the Democrats take control of Washington you might see an infusion of money as well but you can’t rely on that. I know all those things are... easier said then done. But it must be done. That’s the point. There are critical details for these lines that will make the difference between band aid fixes and actual improvements to the quality of life for Los Angelinos. They are things such as trenching/underground/aerial portions of Expo that’s not grade separated, underground Expo/Blue from Washington to MetroCenter, make the Van Nuys line entirely grade separated while guaranteeing it merges with the Sepulveda line to make one cohesive line, make almost the entire Crenshaw North line underground. Take care of short extensions that make a huge difference: Green Line to Norwalk ML, Heavy Rail to Arts district, Red Line to Bob Hope Airport, Purple Line to Santa Monica ... The Gold Line extension to Montclair has $1 billion in funding from Measure M and is expected to carry 17,770 riders per day. The Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT has $270 million in Measure M funding and is expected to carry 11,000 to 18,000 riders. The Fairfax alternative carries 1,500 more riders than the La Brea alternative and costs $1.7 billion more. Not only would cancelling these projects still leave half a billion to be filled, nobody would agree that it is cost-effective to cancel funding for 30,000-40,000 riders to build a project to accommodate 1500 more riders. The projects have a lot of political support and are already part of the Olympics 28 by 28 plan. The Gold Line particularly has a lot of support from the state as it runs through many districts. It is built by a separate political entity, the Gold Line Construction Authority, via state legislation sponsored by Adam Schiff (now a well-known US Congressman), because they did not trust Metro with the project. Measure M also uses a population-based allocation formula, so funds should stay within their subregions. Since San Gabriel Valley is 15-16% of the county population, they get 15-16% of Measure M funds. In no reality will you get more funding for projects by taking away projects promised to others, so you should stop dreaming of cancelling any projects to get extra funding. It is political suicide to propose breaking promises with other populations in order to fund other projects in areas far away. In terms of lobbying Sacramento for more funding, they already received the lions share of SB1 funding in the first SB1 funding round, about 26 percent and $1.8 billion total. Sacramento won’t be able to provide similar funding in the future if Proposition 6 passes and repeals the gas tax. They already are pursuing many private partnerships and I don’t think anybody would ever agree that raising fares while ridership is dropping is a good idea. My argument is that these ridership numbers change based on doing the project CORRECT. Not in the Crenshaw case but if you took all the street running portion away from the expo and speed it up by 10-15 minutes and make it more reliable ... you don’t think you’ll get more riders? My argument with Fairfax is simple - they’re gonna likely go with La Brea even though it will be an aerial eye sore AND it will avoid many major destinations. I’m just saying maybe Metro keeps all the promises it makes but from now on it abandons the regional way it does things. The clear needs are in Hollywood North of Wilshire, the Westside, the Valley, and in a lesser degree the WSAB. Honestly the issue Metro faces is a microcosm of the nation. Our infrastructure funding is ABYSMAL. Our roads fall apart, bridges collapse, airports are awful and our mass transit is world in the developed world. The Federal government throws billions around like there is no tomorrow - so many major cities could use that money to improve their transit. Of course that sounds like fantasy land and it is - that’s a sad state of affairs. We were told this President would BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE!!! ... yeah we know. maybe infrastructure in Moscow. My argument is Sacramento is simple - they have a $170B budget - add $4B a year to that for the next ten years before the Olympics - what do you have, $40 billion. Then there’s the boom doggle of California high speed rail - nearly $70B - that could literally build out the whole system in LA and upgrade the whole San Francisco system. I just think the priorities are totally out of whack.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 29, 2018 5:05:42 GMT -8
The Gold Line extension to Montclair has $1 billion in funding from Measure M and is expected to carry 17,770 riders per day. The Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT has $270 million in Measure M funding and is expected to carry 11,000 to 18,000 riders. The Fairfax alternative carries 1,500 more riders than the La Brea alternative and costs $1.7 billion more. Not only would cancelling these projects still leave half a billion to be filled, nobody would agree that it is cost-effective to cancel funding for 30,000-40,000 riders to build a project to accommodate 1500 more riders. The projects have a lot of political support and are already part of the Olympics 28 by 28 plan. The Gold Line particularly has a lot of support from the state as it runs through many districts. It is built by a separate political entity, the Gold Line Construction Authority, via state legislation sponsored by Adam Schiff (now a well-known US Congressman), because they did not trust Metro with the project. Measure M also uses a population-based allocation formula, so funds should stay within their subregions. Since San Gabriel Valley is 15-16% of the county population, they get 15-16% of Measure M funds. In no reality will you get more funding for projects by taking away projects promised to others, so you should stop dreaming of cancelling any projects to get extra funding. It is political suicide to propose breaking promises with other populations in order to fund other projects in areas far away. In terms of lobbying Sacramento for more funding, they already received the lions share of SB1 funding in the first SB1 funding round, about 26 percent and $1.8 billion total. Sacramento won’t be able to provide similar funding in the future if Proposition 6 passes and repeals the gas tax. They already are pursuing many private partnerships and I don’t think anybody would ever agree that raising fares while ridership is dropping is a good idea. My argument is that these ridership numbers change based on doing the project CORRECT. Not in the Crenshaw case but if you took all the street running portion away from the expo and speed it up by 10-15 minutes and make it more reliable ... you don’t think you’ll get more riders? My argument with Fairfax is simple - they’re gonna likely go with La Brea even though it will be an aerial eye sore AND it will avoid many major destinations. I’m just saying maybe Metro keeps all the promises it makes but from now on it abandons the regional way it does things. The clear needs are in Hollywood North of Wilshire, the Westside, the Valley, and in a lesser degree the WSAB. Honestly the issue Metro faces is a microcosm of the nation. Our infrastructure funding is ABYSMAL. Our roads fall apart, bridges collapse, airports are awful and our mass transit is world in the developed world. The Federal government throws billions around like there is no tomorrow - so many major cities could use that money to improve their transit. Of course that sounds like fantasy land and it is - that’s a sad state of affairs. We were told this President would BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE!!! ... yeah we know. maybe infrastructure in Moscow. My argument is Sacramento is simple - they have a $170B budget - add $4B a year to that for the next ten years before the Olympics - what do you have, $40 billion. Then there’s the boom doggle of California high speed rail - nearly $70B - that could literally build out the whole system in LA and upgrade the whole San Francisco system. I just think the priorities are totally out of whack. I think there is still a possibility they may choose Fairfax, not because it is a better project but because it could satisfy more communities politically, as West Hollywood would get 2 stations under that alignment compared to 1 under La Brea (they want 3 stations, so it could be a compromise). West Hollywood may still support trying to get extra funding for a Fairfax alignment. There are also a lot of major stakeholders along the alignment that can push for a line. La Brea is an alignment who appeals more to transit nerds and the transit-dependent that would use the line, but those communities have less of a voice. In terms of Sacramento, it took a 2/3 legislature vote to pass the gas tax, which raises $5.4 billion/year for infrastructure spending statewide, and there is a possibility that it will be repealed in November by voters. Trying to get $4 billion/year to just Los Angeles would be a nonstarter politically.
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jul 29, 2018 11:25:06 GMT -8
My argument is that these ridership numbers change based on doing the project CORRECT. Not in the Crenshaw case but if you took all the street running portion away from the expo and speed it up by 10-15 minutes and make it more reliable ... you don’t think you’ll get more riders? My argument with Fairfax is simple - they’re gonna likely go with La Brea even though it will be an aerial eye sore AND it will avoid many major destinations. I’m just saying maybe Metro keeps all the promises it makes but from now on it abandons the regional way it does things. The clear needs are in Hollywood North of Wilshire, the Westside, the Valley, and in a lesser degree the WSAB. Honestly the issue Metro faces is a microcosm of the nation. Our infrastructure funding is ABYSMAL. Our roads fall apart, bridges collapse, airports are awful and our mass transit is world in the developed world. The Federal government throws billions around like there is no tomorrow - so many major cities could use that money to improve their transit. Of course that sounds like fantasy land and it is - that’s a sad state of affairs. We were told this President would BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE!!! ... yeah we know. maybe infrastructure in Moscow. My argument is Sacramento is simple - they have a $170B budget - add $4B a year to that for the next ten years before the Olympics - what do you have, $40 billion. Then there’s the boom doggle of California high speed rail - nearly $70B - that could literally build out the whole system in LA and upgrade the whole San Francisco system. I just think the priorities are totally out of whack. I think there is still a possibility they may choose Fairfax, not because it is a better project but because it could satisfy more communities politically, as West Hollywood would get 2 stations under that alignment compared to 1 under La Brea (they want 3 stations, so it could be a compromise). West Hollywood may still support trying to get extra funding for a Fairfax alignment. There are also a lot of major stakeholders along the alignment that can push for a line. La Brea is an alignment who appeals more to transit nerds and the transit-dependent that would use the line, but those communities have less of a voice. In terms of Sacramento, it took a 2/3 legislature vote to pass the gas tax, which raises $5.4 billion/year for infrastructure spending statewide, and there is a possibility that it will be repealed in November by voters. Trying to get $4 billion/year to just Los Angeles would be a nonstarter politically. That’s crazy to me. I think of California as such a progressive state. And a good chunk of tax revenue probably comes from the Los Angeles area - and a first class transportation system with rail that gets you from your suburban neighborhood block to downtown or the west side or lax or rams/chargers stadium or to your work in century city - to me would be worth it. As for maybe $4B a year, do the same thing for the Bay Area as Bart needs more routes in the city of SF proper. All I’m saying is SOMETHING needs to change, the status quo is unacceptable. We claim to be the greatest nation in the world (which I think we are) but in many quality of life issues we aren’t - and transportation is one of them. By the time the 2028 Olympics show up in LA, there should be a subway to Santa Monica, a subway on SM blvd, a LRT subway to Hollywood/Highland (Crenshaw North), and a Subway from the valley to LA stadium and probably the most underrated NEED - a subway under Vermont to the GL .......Of course half of that is pure fantasy but it SHOULD be done. LA has two major issues - Mass Transit and housing. As the housing issues are taken care you’ll have denser and denser parts of town and traffic will get worse and worse and you’ll nees more and more rail. Side note: I consider myself a political moderate (along the JFK lines) but for La’s sake let’s hope the Dems take Washington back with Schiff and Fienstien in powerful roles.
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jul 29, 2018 11:33:09 GMT -8
My argument is that these ridership numbers change based on doing the project CORRECT. Not in the Crenshaw case but if you took all the street running portion away from the expo and speed it up by 10-15 minutes and make it more reliable ... you don’t think you’ll get more riders? My argument with Fairfax is simple - they’re gonna likely go with La Brea even though it will be an aerial eye sore AND it will avoid many major destinations. I’m just saying maybe Metro keeps all the promises it makes but from now on it abandons the regional way it does things. The clear needs are in Hollywood North of Wilshire, the Westside, the Valley, and in a lesser degree the WSAB. Honestly the issue Metro faces is a microcosm of the nation. Our infrastructure funding is ABYSMAL. Our roads fall apart, bridges collapse, airports are awful and our mass transit is world in the developed world. The Federal government throws billions around like there is no tomorrow - so many major cities could use that money to improve their transit. Of course that sounds like fantasy land and it is - that’s a sad state of affairs. We were told this President would BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE!!! ... yeah we know. maybe infrastructure in Moscow. My argument is Sacramento is simple - they have a $170B budget - add $4B a year to that for the next ten years before the Olympics - what do you have, $40 billion. Then there’s the boom doggle of California high speed rail - nearly $70B - that could literally build out the whole system in LA and upgrade the whole San Francisco system. I just think the priorities are totally out of whack. I think there is still a possibility they may choose Fairfax, not because it is a better project but because it could satisfy more communities politically, as West Hollywood would get 2 stations under that alignment compared to 1 under La Brea (they want 3 stations, so it could be a compromise). West Hollywood may still support trying to get extra funding for a Fairfax alignment. There are also a lot of major stakeholders along the alignment that can push for a line. La Brea is an alignment who appeals more to transit nerds and the transit-dependent that would use the line, but those communities have less of a voice.. Speaking of West Hollywood, how much money can they actually contribute? Realistically
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 29, 2018 13:23:37 GMT -8
I did the math on La Brea vs Fairfax. La Brea has 99.66% of the Fairfax ridership for 63.83% of the Fairfax cost.
And I feel like anyone who complains automatically that aerial is an eyesore has not seen any of the aerial portions of the Expo line. the elevated portions are not an eyesore at all. If anything, it's become an Iconic part of culver city.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 29, 2018 20:44:13 GMT -8
I think there is still a possibility they may choose Fairfax, not because it is a better project but because it could satisfy more communities politically, as West Hollywood would get 2 stations under that alignment compared to 1 under La Brea (they want 3 stations, so it could be a compromise). West Hollywood may still support trying to get extra funding for a Fairfax alignment. There are also a lot of major stakeholders along the alignment that can push for a line. La Brea is an alignment who appeals more to transit nerds and the transit-dependent that would use the line, but those communities have less of a voice.. Speaking of West Hollywood, how much money can they actually contribute? Realistically They are doing a study to see what they can actually do. They get about 2.25 million per year in "local return" from the transportation sales taxes ($500,000/year from Measure M). I am far from a financing expert, but I think, assuming 30 year bonds, they can get $12 million in Measure M local return bonds and $54 million if they bond against all local return funds. They would need to get funds elsewhere; they are exploring an enhanced infrastructure finance district, finding a private partner and I've also read about a possible marijuana tax. I don't know how much those options can generate.
|
|
|
Post by LineDrive on Jul 30, 2018 4:02:34 GMT -8
I did the math on La Brea vs Fairfax. La Brea has 99.66% of the Fairfax ridership for 63.83% of the Fairfax cost. And I feel like anyone who complains automatically that aerial is an eyesore has not seen any of the aerial portions of the Expo line. the elevated portions are not an eyesore at all. If anything, it's become an Iconic part of culver city. Haven’t we all questioned the way Metro fudges ridership projections to fit options they prefer or to keep expectations down? ...I just don’t see how the riderships would be so similar. You’ll maintain mostly not all of the La Brea speed - while hitting a lot more destinations. And I’m not “automatically” claiming it to be an eye sore - I’m sure they can be given a modern look - but you also have to remember Culver City is different from West/Hollywood In some cases paying more for the better option is worth it and in some cases being more frugal is worth it. This is a line that I think will be SLAMMED with riders far more than ridership numbers are saying - this needs to be done right As I said before: Orange Line - not done right from the start, now they have to pay to upgrade it then again pay for conversion. You have the Blue & Expo lines in the Washington/Flower/Pico area not done right - now paying for it to be fixed. Get this line right.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 30, 2018 6:43:54 GMT -8
I did the math on La Brea vs Fairfax. La Brea has 99.66% of the Fairfax ridership for 63.83% of the Fairfax cost. And I feel like anyone who complains automatically that aerial is an eyesore has not seen any of the aerial portions of the Expo line. the elevated portions are not an eyesore at all. If anything, it's become an Iconic part of culver city. Haven’t we all questioned the way Metro fudges ridership projections to fit options they prefer or to keep expectations down? ...I just don’t see how the riderships would be so similar. You’ll maintain mostly not all of the La Brea speed - while hitting a lot more destinations. And I’m not “automatically” claiming it to be an eye sore - I’m sure they can be given a modern look - but you also have to remember Culver City is different from West/Hollywood In some cases paying more for the better option is worth it and in some cases being more frugal is worth it. This is a line that I think will be SLAMMED with riders far more than ridership numbers are saying - this needs to be done right As I said before: Orange Line - not done right from the start, now they have to pay to upgrade it then again pay for conversion. You have the Blue & Expo lines in the Washington/Flower/Pico area not done right - now paying for it to be fixed. Get this line right. This line has $2B in 2016 dollars from Measure M, but it isn't coming for decades. That is a long way from being able to build a nearly $5B line in the next decade. Metro can't wave a magic wand to print billions of dollars. As far as ridership, the La Cienega route takes 50% longer. If I'm going from Hollywood to LAX, I'd probably just Uber rather than take a long winding route that goes West and then back East and then back West again that also needs to run on the streets for a section on San Vicente. As far as the Orange Line, there is no evidence that the line is at capacity and Metro has denied that the line is at capacity as well. At a little over 20k riders this line has less than half the ridership of other bus lines like Vermont or Western. The plan to add crossing gates and to grade separate a couple of intersections to speed up the line is a good one. Eventually, decades from now it will be converted to light rail, but when the Orange Line was built, it's bridges were built to light rail specs. so it is not like much work is being wasted. Of course, back in the early days the predecessor to Metro talked about rail on the corridor and the Valley came out strongly opposed and had their State Senator help pass a state law banning surface light rail here. This law was in place when Metro built the Orange Line.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 30, 2018 8:36:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 30, 2018 9:37:10 GMT -8
And I feel like anyone who complains automatically that aerial is an eyesore has not seen any of the aerial portions of the Expo line. the elevated portions are not an eyesore at all. If anything, it's become an Iconic part of culver city. I agree they are beautiful however there is a difference between an elevated structure running on a railroad right of way crossing a street perpendicularly or obliquely like the Culver City example than an elevated structure running in the middle of an arterial street so there will need careful consideration and renderings to show how this will look in relation to the streetscape to show there is a harmonious balance.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 7, 2018 4:19:16 GMT -8
Speaking of West Hollywood, how much money can they actually contribute? Realistically Going back to this question, I noticed in this report for the Rams stadium area an estimate of the funds that an EIFD can generate: lametro.nextrequest.com/documents/182842/download?token=Page 11 says a potential Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District in the stadium area can generate between $128 million to $575 million over 20 years (the ranges vary depending on how the EIFD is structured).
|
|