|
Post by andert on Mar 31, 2021 6:27:48 GMT -8
The Biden admin has released its infrastructure plan. It doubles federal spending on public transit, but it seems it focuses more on EVs on the transportation side. I haven't been able to find an analysis yet of how this money will be doled out, but my assumption is that the existing funding programs will just have their budgets doubled. Do you think that this will significantly impact federal dollars for the LA Metro, to allow either further acceleration of Measure M lines or funding new projects alongside Measure M ones? Pete actually non-answers this question in this interview here. This article from last week also has some details on the jostling among passenger rail agencies in CA for money. Surfliner wants to nearly double the speed to SD by smoothing curves, electrifying, and moving part of the track into a 1mi tunnel from an ocean bluff at risk of collapse. (I gotta say I went to SD last weekend and drove, where I almost always take the Surfliner, and even at 3.5hrs it's more than worth it. If it gets down to 2hrs that train is going to be packed every hour of the day. It already kind of is.) Once it's clearer where this money is likely to go (and assuming I have time), I plan to make another Metro update video about the last year of progress and changes to plans.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 31, 2021 16:33:42 GMT -8
The Biden admin has released its infrastructure plan. It doubles federal spending on public transit, but it seems it focuses more on EVs on the transportation side. I haven't been able to find an analysis yet of how this money will be doled out, but my assumption is that the existing funding programs will just have their budgets doubled. Do you think that this will significantly impact federal dollars for the LA Metro, to allow either further acceleration of Measure M lines or funding new projects alongside Measure M ones? Pete actually non-answers this question in this interview here. This article from last week also has some details on the jostling among passenger rail agencies in CA for money. Surfliner wants to nearly double the speed to SD by smoothing curves, electrifying, and moving part of the track into a 1mi tunnel from an ocean bluff at risk of collapse. (I gotta say I went to SD last weekend and drove, where I almost always take the Surfliner, and even at 3.5hrs it's more than worth it. If it gets down to 2hrs that train is going to be packed every hour of the day. It already kind of is.) Once it's clearer where this money is likely to go (and assuming I have time), I plan to make another Metro update video about the last year of progress and changes to plans. They are just broad outlines for now, so we don't really know until they start drafting the law. Metro always has done better than most with federal funding, because it has so much sales tax dollars to match, so I think it would do well in any bill. There are large funding gaps for WSAB and Sepulveda Line (and Inglewood Transit Connector), which extra money could help fill. There are also small funding gaps for ESFV and the C Line Extension to Torrance. In terms of unfunded projects, the ones that are in the environmental planning process (and could thus be considered close to "shovel-ready") are the second phase of the Union Station improvements, Sepulveda Line from Westwood to LAX, the Arts District station, Crenshaw Northern extension, and rail on the Vermont Corridor. There are also improvements to existing lines that can be more shovel-ready because they don't need as much environmental planning, or even if it needs an EIR, it doesn't take as long to prepare one, since it does not involve a whole new line (upgrading C Line to accommodate 3-car trains, improving the Flower/Washington junction on the A/E lines).
|
|
|
Post by andert on Mar 31, 2021 17:16:40 GMT -8
They are just broad outlines for now, so we don't really know until they start drafting the law. Metro always has done better than most with federal funding, because it has so much sales tax dollars to match, so I think it would do well in any bill. There are large funding gaps for WSAB and Sepulveda Line (and Inglewood Transit Connector), which extra money could help fill. There are also small funding gaps for ESFV and the C Line Extension to Torrance. In terms of unfunded projects, the ones that are in the environmental planning process (and could thus be considered close to "shovel-ready") are the second phase of the Union Station improvements, Sepulveda Line from Westwood to LAX, the Arts District station, Crenshaw Northern extension, and rail on the Vermont Corridor. There are also improvements to existing lines that can be more shovel-ready because they don't need as much environmental planning, or even if it needs an EIR, it doesn't take as long to prepare one, since it does not involve a whole new line (upgrading C Line to accommodate 3-car trains, improving the Flower/Washington junction on the A/E lines). Yeah the Vermont rail, Crenshaw North, and Flower junction are the three I'm really curious to see if there's any funds for. I feel like those three are super important (along with sepulveda) for growing a much larger ridership on the system as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 4, 2021 4:26:53 GMT -8
I was wondering this myself.
From the initial plans of the bill I’d say there is way too little funding for mass transit. I mean the mass transit rail systems in this country need roughly $350B to expansion and maintenance. I think I saw $85B (maybe I’m off I’m on that?) but let’s say I’m not. The most LA would take out of that is what?... $20B?
These are some of the major projects that would turn Metro from a decent moderately used system to a first class system with ridership that I think would maybe triple in a short along of time:
The major ones:
• $13B for Sepulveda [Phase1] (shortfall of $8.5B) • $5.5B for Crenshaw North (shortfall of $3.2B) • $9B for Vermont Red Line ext (shortfall of $9B) • $1.5B for Flower St Subway (shortfall of $1B)
That’s $21.7B shortfall. I actually think if they could get $20B from the Biden plan that would make a massive difference
Then projects right behind it:
• $3B for Purple Santa Monica Ext (shortfall of $3B) *Once Sepulveda is built and Purple Line to the VA is complete the Expo line is going to be way over capacity*
Orange Line light rail (preferably as an extension of ESFV); West Santa Ana Branch, East Side Extension. Could go on and on.
Funding and building these projects don’t just improve quality of life for those along the new lines or extensions and doesn’t just add ridership for that particular line. It makes the entire system seem more legitimate, more useful and makes using mass transit as a more reasonable option for the public at large.
I think a tag of $300B would have been more appropriate. Because NYC needs roughly $50B, Boston needs $25B, Chicago needs roughly $15B, Atlanta needs $10B, Dallas needs $10B, Austin needs $5B, Seattle needs roughly $15B.
Needless to say this bill has the potential to change everything. Hopefully LA can get at least $20B out of it so it can finish those crucial projects this decade
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 5, 2021 8:22:21 GMT -8
I think CA is likely to get between 8% and 12% of stimulus dollars and I don’t think the projects mentioned thus far will be a top priority.. and let’s not forget buses (but I’m not sure if the 85 Billion under discussion is just rail money)
The centerpiece will be the LA to San Diego line second will be the antelope valley line where it will overlap the HSR interim route.
Then, I think the top priority will be metro link. Grade separations, double tracking and electrification preparation
Speaking of HsR I would expect additional money for various grade separations that have been nixed between San Jose and Gilroy to be top priorities because they’re easy to earmark and can be part of the already ongoing electrification without being explicitly HSR
And the top state heavy rail money will be DTx in San Francisco followed by sepulveda, but depending on how powerful various congressional representatives are, the San Jose Bart boondoggle will probably be second instead of sepulveda.
Crenshaw phase two will get nothing because it’s taken metro three years to advance the project five percent and Mayor Butts is going to close the line down for two years within two months after it “opens” to do an unneeded grade separation and he will use his prerogative to kill Crenshaw two if it interferes with his graft people mover.
Butts is also why sepulveda is unlikely to be a top state priority, he’s pushing the monorail that no one else in the region wants and if it’s not going to be monorail, he’ll try and kill the project in revenge.
An additional mark against Crenshaw two is that it’s absurd West Hollywood routings is a reprise of the infamous red line “wounded knee “ routing that was never built because of the methane explosion. Additionally, the massive difficulties TBMs are finding west of la brea in all phases of the purple extension means that the expected tunneling costs for any additional rail through these areas is going to increase at least thirty percent because they have a better idea of how insanely difficult and frought these former oil fields are to mine through. Wounded knee two for the Crenshaw extension goes out of its way to route through the most difficult and problematic areas!
On the other hand van nuys will probably be a top candidate for full funding as the shortfall isn’t severe and the EIrs are complete
Likewise small projects like the arts district platform on purple and extending platform length on green are almost slam dunks
One possible upgrade would be money to replace 100% of the LRT Fleet with open gangway seating. We would instantly get a massive capacity upgrade, and could sell the existing nearly new cars to other cities saving them a ton of money. It has huge bang for the buck, across the board.
So I think it’s likely to be:
1.5 billion Amtrak surf liner 0.5 billion antelope valley enhancements 1 billion metro link safety improvements over hundreds of intersections and double tracking 1.5 billion DTX, Bart SJ, Caltrain electrification and grade separations projects 1 billion sepulveda pass 1 billion LA bus lane and light rail improvements and union station 1-3 billion other rail projects throughout the state.
HSR gets “nothing “ but the improvements in SF and LA will actually be sneaky HSR contributions and will take the state legislative pressure off HSR to work on the La and Sf ends
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 7, 2021 2:36:00 GMT -8
That would be downright hideous.
If a 2 Trillion dollar infrastructure bill doesn’t result in a single LA Metro line being extended or built that is a hustorically bad screw up
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 8, 2021 10:28:38 GMT -8
Here's the detailed breakdown of the proposed $621 billion for transportation spending in the $2 trillion infrastructure plan.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 8, 2021 10:48:59 GMT -8
Welp. That is, uh, not high.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 8, 2021 12:45:01 GMT -8
Welp. That is, uh, not high. We'll see how Congress changes it. For the COVID stimulus bill, the Biden proposal was $20 billion for transit but the final bill was $30.5 billion. There are also things that aren't in the Transit Expansion category but can probably fund transit expansion, such as the $25 billion for Transformational Infrastructure Projects.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 8, 2021 13:06:00 GMT -8
An absolute disgrace.
What a failed failed opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 8, 2021 14:03:38 GMT -8
The biggest thing missing is "america fast forward" zero percent loans that would lend based on future tax revenues. LA could then build everything from R and M in ten years.
the only thing in the bill that is more unpopular than anything else is subsidies for electric cars (currently an eyepopping 100B, which works out to 13.33 million $7500 rebates) even if you're upset it's included, it's unpopularity means it's a good negotiating tool to deflect attention from other things, and by the time the sausage is made, we are likely to see Transit expansion be more like 40 billion, and transformative projects to be more like 60billion and electric car subsidies down to 50 billion.
This actually looks better to me now.
Green to Norwalk, Van Nuys to Sylmar, Purple Arts district, Gold Eastside Extension, Purple to Santa Monica, Crenshaw north, are all terrific candidates and the first three are slam dunks to get funding under transit expansion category.
There's also two bad transit expansion options, the worst is a billion for two more miles of Gold line 3B. and a billion for two more stations on Green to Torrance. In both cases, the massive per mile cost of these minuscule additions is entirely attributable to realigning existing freight rail. But metro will probably try to fund them. That's a terrible idea because they starve other projects of funds.
Crenshaw north is a special case, because unless it's elevated via La Brea it's prohibitively expensive, and the cost of financing it could crowd out financing other LA projects. I'd rather get the three small projects (green to norwalk, van nuys to sylmar, Purple Arts District) through first and then go hat in hand for the five-nine billion metro will want for wounded knee crenshaw north lightrail subway, or Santa Monica extension, or Eastside Extension..
I also did not realize that it's just 85 billion for amtrak/intercity rail and that is mind boggling and amazing. They will get the Surfliner improvements 100% funded out of that pot and in ten years we'll have LA to SD train trips in less than two hours, which is a more significant rail and ridership achievement than anything HSR will EVER achieve in the next fifty years.
Additionally, the separate pot for rail modernization is fantastic news. Metrolink should get a huge amount of money out of that for their SCORE program so we will see a lot of double tracking and electrification and high platform upgrades to metrolink from that. What would also probably fit into this category is Green line platform expansion so it can serve three car consists. this is also the pot that could fund the HSR upgrades needed by Caltrain and Metrolink to accomadate sharing track with HSR. funding that would take all the state legislative pressure off the HSR program that is currently trying to redirect funds towards those two projects.
Transformative projects is what is most exciting. that's what can wind up funding 2-5 billion for Sepulveda phase 1 and that's what can fund WSAB.
Way far left field possibility. Transformative projects could include HSR. But what is really transformative is the tunnel contracts. Particularly bridging the unbridgeable rail gap from Bakersfield to Palmdale. If HSR can break out that contract separately, they could probably get it funded. LA to Palmdale is a much longer shot for funding, but Bakersfield Palmdale (9 to 11 miles of tunnels) should be a massive priority.
Unfortunately for southern california, HSR Gilroy to Carlucci Road (Pacheco Pass) 15 miles of tunnel contracts are equally essential. and HSR will definitely focus on trying to get that tunneling contract a five billion plus chunk. If HSR can get that tunnel built with this infrastructure bill, HSR will be able to run San Francisco to Bakersfield and it's completion is guaranteed.
if tunneling contracts for both the Pacheco Pass and Bakersfield to Palmdale tunnels could be financed with this infrastructure bill. HSR service from San Francisco to Palmdale will be an achievable reality in the next fifteen years.
Third the HSR Palmdale to Sylmar tunnels are super crucial, but they're obviously the third priority of tunneling contracts, which is a shame since having the longest tunnel reaches they'll take the longest to mine.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 8, 2021 19:17:58 GMT -8
The biggest thing missing is "america fast forward" zero percent loans that would lend based on future tax revenues. LA could then build everything from R and M in ten years. the only thing in the bill that is more unpopular than anything else is subsidies for electric cars (currently an eyepopping 100B, which works out to 13.33 million $7500 rebates) even if you're upset it's included, it's unpopularity means it's a good negotiating tool to deflect attention from other things, and by the time the sausage is made, we are likely to see Transit expansion be more like 40 billion, and transformative projects to be more like 60billion and electric car subsidies down to 50 billion. This actually looks better to me now. Green to Norwalk, Van Nuys to Sylmar, Purple Arts district, Gold Eastside Extension, Purple to Santa Monica, Crenshaw north, are all terrific candidates and the first three are slam dunks to get funding under transit expansion category. There's also two bad transit expansion options, the worst is a billion for two more miles of Gold line 3B. and a billion for two more stations on Green to Torrance. In both cases, the massive per mile cost of these minuscule additions is entirely attributable to realigning existing freight rail. But metro will probably try to fund them. That's a terrible idea because they starve other projects of funds. Crenshaw north is a special case, because unless it's elevated via La Brea it's prohibitively expensive, and the cost of financing it could crowd out financing other LA projects. I'd rather get the three small projects (green to norwalk, van nuys to sylmar, Purple Arts District) through first and then go hat in hand for the five-nine billion metro will want for wounded knee crenshaw north lightrail subway, or Santa Monica extension, or Eastside Extension.. I also did not realize that it's just 85 billion for amtrak/intercity rail and that is mind boggling and amazing. They will get the Surfliner improvements 100% funded out of that pot and in ten years we'll have LA to SD train trips in less than two hours, which is a more significant rail and ridership achievement than anything HSR will EVER achieve in the next fifty years. Additionally, the separate pot for rail modernization is fantastic news. Metrolink should get a huge amount of money out of that for their SCORE program so we will see a lot of double tracking and electrification and high platform upgrades to metrolink from that. What would also probably fit into this category is Green line platform expansion so it can serve three car consists. this is also the pot that could fund the HSR upgrades needed by Caltrain and Metrolink to accomadate sharing track with HSR. funding that would take all the state legislative pressure off the HSR program that is currently trying to redirect funds towards those two projects. Transformative projects is what is most exciting. that's what can wind up funding 2-5 billion for Sepulveda phase 1 and that's what can fund WSAB. Way far left field possibility. Transformative projects could include HSR. But what is really transformative is the tunnel contracts. Particularly bridging the unbridgeable rail gap from Bakersfield to Palmdale. If HSR can break out that contract separately, they could probably get it funded. LA to Palmdale is a much longer shot for funding, but Bakersfield Palmdale (9 to 11 miles of tunnels) should be a massive priority. Unfortunately for southern california, HSR Gilroy to Carlucci Road (Pacheco Pass) 15 miles of tunnel contracts are equally essential. and HSR will definitely focus on trying to get that tunneling contract a five billion plus chunk. If HSR can get that tunnel built with this infrastructure bill, HSR will be able to run San Francisco to Bakersfield and it's completion is guaranteed. if tunneling contracts for both the Pacheco Pass and Bakersfield to Palmdale tunnels could be financed with this infrastructure bill. HSR service from San Francisco to Palmdale will be an achievable reality in the next fifteen years. Third the HSR Palmdale to Sylmar tunnels are super crucial, but they're obviously the third priority of tunneling contracts, which is a shame since having the longest tunnel reaches they'll take the longest to mine. I’m sorry. You’re being WAY WAY WAY too generous. This nation is supposed to be world leaders. The best of the best. Our infrastructure is a disaster. China, our main world competitior has built entire Metro networks in 6 years. They’ve built DOZENS of HSR lines between 2008 and 2020. Now we have a President that is introducing an infrastructure bill - a real chance for us as a nation to upgrade our power network to be efficient and reliable; and for us to build transportation projects that are badly needed and are the envy of the world. And.... we do this? $450B should go toward rail expansion, $240B of this bill should go toward mass transit expansion projects and $210B for HSR. A rough break down would be: NYC: $60B LA: $40B Boston: $23B Bay Area: $17B Atlanta: $10B Chicago: $20B Seattle: $20B Philly: $15B Dallas: $8B Austin: $6B Denver: $2B Phoenix: $2B Charlotte: $3B Pittsburgh: $2B Cleveland: $2B Twin Cities: $5B Miami: $2B Las Vegas: $3B Boston to Washington HSR • $70B California HSR Sac-SF-LA • $50B Dallas to Houston HSR • $20B Philly to Chicago HSR (Via Pit/Cle/Chi) • $20B Miami to DC HSR (via Orlando/ATL/Cha) $25B Denver to LA HSR (via SLC/LV) $25B (LA) Sepulveda Subway• $12B (including $8B gap) Crenshaw North • $4B (covers gap for Fairfax Alt) Purple Line Santa Monica • $4B (covers entire project) Vermont Red Line Extension • $8B (whole project) Flower St Expo/Blue Subway incl New Pico • $2B Orange Line Conversion • $3B East Side Extension • $4B West Santa Ana Branch $3B That. In combination with electric cars, a faster safer power grid, rural broadband, nationwide 5G, new water lines, and some highway improvements, new bridges, improved airports. Would make a MASSIVE quality of life difference in this country. This should be the standard.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 8, 2021 21:03:20 GMT -8
Infrastructure in the US is in such bad shape that any funding from Washington was mostly going to go to repair and modernization of existing systems. The NY subway system and NE Corridor both need tens of billions of dollars just on the existing lines. Even Surfliner needs billions just to move the tracks off the cliffs in Del Mar and the run through tracks in LAUS. Also, it is not like LA and CA has made much of a case for expansion. Our public transit ridership has been tumbling for years and all of our projects are over budget from HSR to Crenshaw, and everything else.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 9, 2021 6:49:48 GMT -8
The biggest thing missing is "america fast forward" zero percent loans that would lend based on future tax revenues. LA could then build everything from R and M in ten years. Agreed, that should be brought back. Because for a small amount of seed funding that can leverage more financing to get more infrastructure built. Unfortunately the former Tweeter-and-chief #45 foolishly eliminated that with his "tax reform" bill in 2017. I’m sorry. You’re being WAY WAY WAY too generous. This nation is supposed to be world leaders. The best of the best. Our infrastructure is a disaster. China, our main world competitior has built entire Metro networks in 6 years. They’ve built DOZENS of HSR lines between 2008 and 2020. Now we have a President that is introducing an infrastructure bill - a real chance for us as a nation to upgrade our power network to be efficient and reliable; and for us to build transportation projects that are badly needed and are the envy of the world. And.... we do this? $450B should go toward rail expansion, $240B of this bill should go toward mass transit expansion projects and $210B for HSR. A rough break down would be: NYC: $60B LA: $40B Boston: $23B Bay Area: $17B Atlanta: $10B Chicago: $20B Seattle: $20B Philly: $15B Dallas: $8B Austin: $6B Denver: $2B Phoenix: $2B Charlotte: $3B Pittsburgh: $2B Cleveland: $2B Twin Cities: $5B Miami: $2B Las Vegas: $3B Boston to Washington HSR • $70B California HSR Sac-SF-LA • $50B Dallas to Houston HSR • $20B Philly to Chicago HSR (Via Pit/Cle/Chi) • $20B Miami to DC HSR (via Orlando/ATL/Cha) $25B Denver to LA HSR (via SLC/LV) $25B (LA) Sepulveda Subway• $12B (including $8B gap) Crenshaw North • $4B (covers gap for Fairfax Alt) Purple Line Santa Monica • $4B (covers entire project) Vermont Red Line Extension • $8B (whole project) Flower St Expo/Blue Subway incl New Pico • $2B Orange Line Conversion • $3B East Side Extension • $4B West Santa Ana Branch $3B That. In combination with electric cars, a faster safer power grid, rural broadband, nationwide 5G, new water lines, and some highway improvements, new bridges, improved airports. Would make a MASSIVE quality of life difference in this country. This should be the standard. I like the vision in the post, I don't like the reality of just handing out billions of dollars without a paper trail it always leads to crappy rushed projects with very little utility and a lot of waste and graft. I'd like to see multiple infrastructure bills, this one to start and then another bill in about 18 months (around Mid Term elections). If there's any money to be doled out in this first package it is a small portion for seed funding for current and future infrastructure projects that are in the works so that another Infrastructure stimulus can work on the larger expansion projects and really rebuilt our economy. This is where the bureaucratic machine actually makes sense to do Environmental Impact studies and Planning reports so that there is a paper trail of where money is going and how it will be spent and justifies the expenses. My reasoning is purely selfish because honestly I would love LA (and other self-help voter approved sales tax funded regions) to have a bigger pot of those dollars because we have actually gone to voters to support transportation funding measures to finance public infrastructure where older cities have rested on their laurels and they need to get their shit together. What I see may happen with this initial infrastructure bill is set the foundation for a bigger package later on, so that regions (NYC/Boston/Chicago/Cleveland) can start thinking beyond their State of Good Repair and start putting their own monies where their mouths are through voter approved Sales Taxes. So that local regions are better suited to be in charge of their own destinies and to have the seed money in place to start looking at this so that Federal has what I call "Tax Refund windfalls" those regions with the planning and funding mechanisms in place should get the greater reward.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 9, 2021 13:12:41 GMT -8
I’m sorry. You’re being WAY WAY WAY too generous. This nation is supposed to be world leaders. The best of the best. Our infrastructure is a disaster. China, our main world competitior has built entire Metro networks in 6 years. They’ve built DOZENS of HSR lines between 2008 and 2020. Now we have a President that is introducing an infrastructure bill - a real chance for us as a nation to upgrade our power network to be efficient and reliable; and for us to build transportation projects that are badly needed and are the envy of the world. And.... we do this? $450B should go toward rail expansion, $240B of this bill should go toward mass transit expansion projects and $210B for HSR. A rough break down would be: NYC: $60B LA: $40B Boston: $23B Bay Area: $17B Atlanta: $10B Chicago: $20B Seattle: $20B Philly: $15B Dallas: $8B Austin: $6B Denver: $2B Phoenix: $2B Charlotte: $3B Pittsburgh: $2B Cleveland: $2B Twin Cities: $5B Miami: $2B Las Vegas: $3B Boston to Washington HSR • $70B California HSR Sac-SF-LA • $50B Dallas to Houston HSR • $20B Philly to Chicago HSR (Via Pit/Cle/Chi) • $20B Miami to DC HSR (via Orlando/ATL/Cha) $25B Denver to LA HSR (via SLC/LV) $25B (LA) Sepulveda Subway• $12B (including $8B gap) Crenshaw North • $4B (covers gap for Fairfax Alt) Purple Line Santa Monica • $4B (covers entire project) Vermont Red Line Extension • $8B (whole project) Flower St Expo/Blue Subway incl New Pico • $2B Orange Line Conversion • $3B East Side Extension • $4B West Santa Ana Branch $3B That. In combination with electric cars, a faster safer power grid, rural broadband, nationwide 5G, new water lines, and some highway improvements, new bridges, improved airports. Would make a MASSIVE quality of life difference in this country. This should be the standard. Welp, what's proposed is a lot of money, if it passes and it's a quantum leap in funding. It's not as much as what you want but it's an incredible advancement, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And there are 50 D senators to serve, without which this doesn't pass at all. CA only has two senators. NY only has two senators. Devoting $ proportionally to high population states is just is not going to happen given the apartheid structure of the Senate. that means, its not going to be enough to fund every thing on everyone's wishlist. The most important thing you could advocate for would be the america fast forward program to be included/reactivated/funded. that would use zero percent loans to front Los Angeles county ALL the money expected from R and M for the next 30 to 60 years as needed. Doing that would net LA more money without reducing the direct infrastructure pot for everyone else. (and AFF could obviously be used by others) But they're never going to waste 12 billion of the stimulus on the Sepulveda Rail project. At best it can get a billion, maybe two, and that could maybe accelerate the EIRs and jump start tunneling contracts and then LA can work on securing the rest of the funds piecemeal in the future.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 9, 2021 17:42:10 GMT -8
I’m sorry. You’re being WAY WAY WAY too generous. This nation is supposed to be world leaders. The best of the best. Our infrastructure is a disaster. China, our main world competitior has built entire Metro networks in 6 years. They’ve built DOZENS of HSR lines between 2008 and 2020. Now we have a President that is introducing an infrastructure bill - a real chance for us as a nation to upgrade our power network to be efficient and reliable; and for us to build transportation projects that are badly needed and are the envy of the world. And.... we do this? $450B should go toward rail expansion, $240B of this bill should go toward mass transit expansion projects and $210B for HSR. A rough break down would be: NYC: $60B LA: $40B Boston: $23B Bay Area: $17B Atlanta: $10B Chicago: $20B Seattle: $20B Philly: $15B Dallas: $8B Austin: $6B Denver: $2B Phoenix: $2B Charlotte: $3B Pittsburgh: $2B Cleveland: $2B Twin Cities: $5B Miami: $2B Las Vegas: $3B Boston to Washington HSR • $70B California HSR Sac-SF-LA • $50B Dallas to Houston HSR • $20B Philly to Chicago HSR (Via Pit/Cle/Chi) • $20B Miami to DC HSR (via Orlando/ATL/Cha) $25B Denver to LA HSR (via SLC/LV) $25B (LA) Sepulveda Subway• $12B (including $8B gap) Crenshaw North • $4B (covers gap for Fairfax Alt) Purple Line Santa Monica • $4B (covers entire project) Vermont Red Line Extension • $8B (whole project) Flower St Expo/Blue Subway incl New Pico • $2B Orange Line Conversion • $3B East Side Extension • $4B West Santa Ana Branch $3B That. In combination with electric cars, a faster safer power grid, rural broadband, nationwide 5G, new water lines, and some highway improvements, new bridges, improved airports. Would make a MASSIVE quality of life difference in this country. This should be the standard. Welp, what's proposed is a lot of money, if it passes and it's a quantum leap in funding. It's not as much as what you want but it's an incredible advancement, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And there are 50 D senators to serve, without which this doesn't pass at all. CA only has two senators. NY only has two senators. Devoting $ proportionally to high population states is just is not going to happen given the apartheid structure of the Senate. that means, its not going to be enough to fund every thing on everyone's wishlist. The most important thing you could advocate for would be the america fast forward program to be included/reactivated/funded. that would use zero percent loans to front Los Angeles county ALL the money expected from R and M for the next 30 to 60 years as needed. Doing that would net LA more money without reducing the direct infrastructure pot for everyone else. (and AFF could obviously be used by others) But they're never going to waste 12 billion of the stimulus on the Sepulveda Rail project. At best it can get a billion, maybe two, and that could maybe accelerate the EIRs and jump start tunneling contracts and then LA can work on securing the rest of the funds piecemeal in the future. What could is allotting $1B for a project with an $8B funding gap? Instead of sprinkling it around to give a tiny bit to a bunch of projects that won’t get built for a long time - why not give larger chunks so projects CAN be built. Do you know how much better the public will view both the administration and the infrastructure bill as a whole if they see massive tangible evidence of major things getting done If your internet service is faster. Your roads are better. And in 6 years time LA has a Vermont red line, a Sepulveda Subway and a flower st subway..... the public will see that and be impressed. Color me unimpressed for $1B for a project that has an $8B funding gap
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 12, 2021 9:56:40 GMT -8
What could is allotting $1B for a project with an $8B funding gap? Instead of sprinkling it around to give a tiny bit to a bunch of projects that won’t get built for a long time - why not give larger chunks so projects CAN be built. Do you know how much better the public will view both the administration and the infrastructure bill as a whole if they see massive tangible evidence of major things getting done If your internet service is faster. Your roads are better. And in 6 years time LA has a Vermont red line, a Sepulveda Subway and a flower st subway..... the public will see that and be impressed. Color me unimpressed for $1B for a project that has an $8B funding gap It will take 6 years just to analyze utility relocations for a project as insanely complex as a vermont/wilshire station expansion tie in which is the first step to extend a line down vermont. presumably an EIR would be simultaneous, but it might need a five year EIR before that 6 year utility analysis. THEN, It will probably take another twelve years of utility relocation and station construction and reconstruction for vermont/wilshire tie in. So six years for a vermont subway is just laughable to state. LA is reaching the point where if they want to do projects like Sepulveda they'll be separating the tunneling contract and pushing it forward ahead of the rest of line construction. Purple phase three actually did this. it's why mining has commenced on phase three, despite stations construction at Westwood being non-existent. a billion now allocated to environmental review, locking in prices, and kick starting utility relocations; combined with various other funding currently available could easily jump start tunneling contracts. then a FFGA for the rest of the construction could come in the future. There's 14km to tunnel for Sepulveda phase one in at least two or three reaches, the longest is an 11 km reach. that's 11,000 meters: at 15 meters a day, that's 733 days of mining. With contingency of 20 percent that rises to 880 days, at six days at week that's 146 weeks. over three years you want to add in another 10 % for planned stopages for maintenance, so 160 weeks, we haven't accounted for holidays, let's call it three weeks per year, so another 9 weeks over three years, now we're at 169 weeks. That's best case scenario. 3.25 years of tunneling just the long reach. Assuming that the tunnel mining will be uneventful, which given what we know of the mountain geology is a very naive assumption. the 11 km reach is more likely to take 5 years of continuous mining. and all that's based on an insanely optimistic rate of 15 meters per day. at 10 meters per day, it becomes more like 7-8 years of mining. You can't make that tunnel reach go faster with more money. the rate of mining is what it is. THAT unmitigateable time constraint is why enabling tunneling to start ASAP actually would be a massive win for the entire project and LA community. And if the stimulus can get a billion and make that start happening and in July 2023 they're breaking ground on starting a tunneling process it would be an absolutely unbelievable victory.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 12, 2021 16:36:30 GMT -8
What could is allotting $1B for a project with an $8B funding gap? Instead of sprinkling it around to give a tiny bit to a bunch of projects that won’t get built for a long time - why not give larger chunks so projects CAN be built. Do you know how much better the public will view both the administration and the infrastructure bill as a whole if they see massive tangible evidence of major things getting done If your internet service is faster. Your roads are better. And in 6 years time LA has a Vermont red line, a Sepulveda Subway and a flower st subway..... the public will see that and be impressed. Color me unimpressed for $1B for a project that has an $8B funding gap It will take 6 years just to analyze utility relocations for a project as insanely complex as a vermont/wilshire station expansion tie in which is the first step to extend a line down vermont. presumably an EIR would be simultaneous, but it might need a five year EIR before that 6 year utility analysis. THEN, It will probably take another twelve years of utility relocation and station construction and reconstruction for vermont/wilshire tie in. So six years for a vermont subway is just laughable to state. LA is reaching the point where if they want to do projects like Sepulveda they'll be separating the tunneling contract and pushing it forward ahead of the rest of line construction. Purple phase three actually did this. it's why mining has commenced on phase three, despite stations construction at Westwood being non-existent. a billion now allocated to environmental review, locking in prices, and kick starting utility relocations; combined with various other funding currently available could easily jump start tunneling contracts. then a FFGA for the rest of the construction could come in the future. There's 14km to tunnel for Sepulveda phase one in at least two or three reaches, the longest is an 11 km reach. that's 11,000 meters: at 15 meters a day, that's 733 days of mining. With contingency of 20 percent that rises to 880 days, at six days at week that's 146 weeks. over three years you want to add in another 10 % for planned stopages for maintenance, so 160 weeks, we haven't accounted for holidays, let's call it three weeks per year, so another 9 weeks over three years, now we're at 169 weeks. That's best case scenario. 3.25 years of tunneling just the long reach. Assuming that the tunnel mining will be uneventful, which given what we know of the mountain geology is a very naive assumption. the 11 km reach is more likely to take 5 years of continuous mining. and all that's based on an insanely optimistic rate of 15 meters per day. at 10 meters per day, it becomes more like 7-8 years of mining. You can't make that tunnel reach go faster with more money. the rate of mining is what it is. THAT unmitigateable time constraint is why enabling tunneling to start ASAP actually would be a massive win for the entire project and LA community. And if the stimulus can get a billion and make that start happening and in July 2023 they're breaking ground on starting a tunneling process it would be an absolutely unbelievable victory. Lots of interesting tid bits that I didn’t know about. However the idea that it would take 23 years to build a new Wilshire/Vermont station is a JOKE. It took what... 8.5 years to build the 13 mile cross rail tunnel in London? Which required unbelievable engineering. If it took 23 years to build red line Vermont this country might as well just pack it up. If it was impossible Metro wouldn’t be looking at it as an option for Vermont. Now that Metro ever goes with the best option for anything but hey
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 14, 2021 14:20:40 GMT -8
Lots of interesting tid bits that I didn’t know about. However the idea that it would take 23 years to build a new Wilshire/Vermont station is a JOKE. It took what... 8.5 years to build the 13 mile cross rail tunnel in London? Which required unbelievable engineering. If it took 23 years to build red line Vermont this country might as well just pack it up. If it was impossible Metro wouldn’t be looking at it as an option for Vermont. Now that Metro ever goes with the best option for anything but hey I was kind of exaggerating for effect on the separate utility relocation anlysis and utility relocation. 5 years for environmental review 5 years of utility relocation (but only three years of utility relocation prior to construction) Construction: Excavation of the new station box - 2.5 years. Construction of the new station box - 3.5 years. excavation for the tie in structures - 1.5 years. Construction of tie in support structures - 1 year. Connecting the new and old station box - 2 years. So the station box is probably only an 8 year construction. possibly with a bonus 2.5 years for the tie in. But given the odd curvatures and geographic locations of current station and current subway tunnels there is probably also realignment issues needed. Probably excavate to the tunnels, chop them up, construct a new cavern, realign the tracks etc. so Excavate to tunnels - 2 years demo tunnels - 6 months construct a new cavern - 3 years installation of new trackage and systems 1 year systems testing 6 months. So another 7 years for dealing with the tunnel connection issues. 17.5 years total. but that only happens after eight years combined of environmental review and utility relocation. but it doesn't have to be doomsday. Let's say we just rip the bandaid off, they miraculously get full street closures of wilshire and vermont for three years. they close both subways and go nuts doing everything simultaneously Excavate to tunnels, excavate to tie in structures excavate to new station box - six months. demo tunnels, construct new station, construction new tie in structures, construct new cavern - 2 years installation of new trackage and street restoration - 6 months. systems testing, six months. so maybe 3.5 years if there's a miracle double street closure for three years of the two busiest streets in los angeles. Good luck with that. And that still only happens after eight years combined of environmental review and utility relocation.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 28, 2021 12:11:59 GMT -8
LA Metro will be pushing for there to be more funding available/allocated to California in the Biden infrastructure bill:
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 30, 2021 14:40:23 GMT -8
Thank god. The amount is woefully inadequate.
SO MANY projects are needed
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 14, 2021 10:35:54 GMT -8
Governor Gavin Newsom released his May budget revision proposal, discussing his proposal on how to spend the huge $76 billion California surplus (which includes money from the Biden stimulus). He proposes the following additional funding that is noteworthy for LA projects: • Los Angeles Olympics—$1 billion General Fund to deliver critical projects in time for the 2028 Olympic Games. • Priority Transit and Rail Projects—$1 billion General Fund for transit and rail projects statewide that improve rail and transit connectivity between state and regional/local services. • Active Transportation—$500 million General Fund to advance projects that increase the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advance efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health, and benefit many types of users, especially in disadvantaged communities. • High Priority Grade Separations and Grade Crossing Improvements—$500 million General Fund to support critical safety improvements throughout the state. • High-Speed Rail—$4.2 billion Proposition 1A to complete high-speed rail construction in the Central Valley, advance work to launch service between Merced and Bakersfield, advance planning and project design for the entire project, and leverage potential federal funds. • State Highway Rehabilitation and Local Roads and Bridges—$2 billion ($1.1 billion special funds through 2028, and $968 million federal funds) to support the advancement of priority State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects, Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) projects, and local road and bridge investments. • Zero-Emission Rail and Transit Equipment Purchases and Infrastructure—$407 million ($100 million General Fund, $280 million Public Transportation Account, and $27 million federal funds) to demonstrate and purchase or lease state-of-the-art, clean bus and rail equipment and infrastructure that eliminate fossil fuel emissions and increase intercity rail and intercity bus frequencies. • Zero-Emission Buses and Trucks—$1.4 billion ($1.3 billion General Fund, $87 million Air Pollution Control Fund) to demonstrate and purchase or lease green buses and trucks. These funds are budgeted outside of the transportation budget and are included and described in the Climate Resilience Chapter. The May Revision is here: www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdfNot really about the Biden infrastructure plan, but I don't like having too many discussion threads to keep track of. This is just a proposal, and the California legislature can have a different take on what to spend the surplus on. The $4.2 billion for high-speed rail is from Proposition 1A, which are pre-existing funds that are already required to be spent on high-speed rail, so I wouldn't count that as extra funding from the surplus. The surplus funding I think is any amount that says "General Fund". The legislature also has different groups fighting on how to allocate the high-speed rail funds.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 15, 2021 10:44:39 GMT -8
This cnbc article from yesterday (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/biden-infrastructure-bill-progress-in-talks-with-gop-senators.html) states that the current plan is to pass a smaller, bipartisan bill first focused more on 'hard infrastructure,' with the details hammered out in the next two weeks, followed by a much larger, broader bill that's expected to pass on a party-line vote.
Unclear if all 'hard infrastructure' is being relegated to the first bill, or if both will have money for that. Also unclear if the first bill will have the numbers that have previously been released, or if they'll expand in absence of other forms of infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 15, 2021 14:01:26 GMT -8
This cnbc article from yesterday (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/biden-infrastructure-bill-progress-in-talks-with-gop-senators.html) states that the current plan is to pass a smaller, bipartisan bill first focused more on 'hard infrastructure,' with the details hammered out in the next two weeks, followed by a much larger, broader bill that's expected to pass on a party-line vote. Unclear if all 'hard infrastructure' is being relegated to the first bill, or if both will have money for that. Also unclear if the first bill will have the numbers that have previously been released, or if they'll expand in absence of other forms of infrastructure. You'll probably need to wait awhile before doing your third video--really hard to see how things shake out, though a lot of news reports say Memorial Day is when they will decide whether to keep trying for a bipartisan bill or go on their own.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 15, 2021 22:06:02 GMT -8
This cnbc article from yesterday (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/biden-infrastructure-bill-progress-in-talks-with-gop-senators.html) states that the current plan is to pass a smaller, bipartisan bill first focused more on 'hard infrastructure,' with the details hammered out in the next two weeks, followed by a much larger, broader bill that's expected to pass on a party-line vote. Unclear if all 'hard infrastructure' is being relegated to the first bill, or if both will have money for that. Also unclear if the first bill will have the numbers that have previously been released, or if they'll expand in absence of other forms of infrastructure. You'll probably need to wait awhile before doing your third video--really hard to see how things shake out, though a lot of news reports say Memorial Day is when they will decide whether to keep trying for a bipartisan bill or go on their own. I was also planning to do one when the new strategic unfunded list is released, so maybe I can just roll them together actually if I wait another month or so. Probably for the best anyway as I'm starting on a new film on Monday and probably shouldn't throw another video in the mix alongside it right away.
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 21, 2021 11:54:14 GMT -8
The Biden administration offered to cut $550 billion from its infrastructure proposal, from $2.25 trillion to $1.7 trillion, for a potential bipartisan bill:
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 21, 2021 16:34:17 GMT -8
that will not get them ten senate votes.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 28, 2021 20:48:43 GMT -8
It's like the Affordable Care Act all over again. Dems keep watering down the bill to get GOP votes but no will come anyway so we end up with a crap law that catered to all GOP demands but was passed only with Dem votes.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 29, 2021 8:36:30 GMT -8
God we do love own-goaling, don't we. I think Manchin and Sinema are demanding the appearance of bipartisanship, but when it inevitably doesn't happen, i hope they just return to the original proposal. But I know they probably won't. Sigh. Why didn't we get ME and NC.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 8, 2021 8:26:27 GMT -8
|
|