|
|
Post by brady12 on May 30, 2021 5:36:07 GMT -8
Don’t know if this belongs on the Purple line forum or this one....
So I saw this on another forum. Wondering if this has any credence.
So the potential cost of the hybrid option that takes Crenshaw North to WeHo is around d $6B. Meanwhile the low end of the LaBrea route is around $3B.
And when Metro was studying alternatives for the Purple Line - the current Wilshire only option was choose due to lack of funds
Metro estimates that the cost would be around $3B.
If this isn’t true then discount the post but IF THIS IS TRUE and I’m not sure if it is - why in the world wouldn’t they choose LaBrea (end it at SM/LaBrea) and then do the HRT extension from Hollywood to the Westside.
The more coverage the metro system has and the more locations it goes too - the more I think it will not just gain its normal projected riders but also riders not accounted for whose whole attitude about metro will change based on the overwhelming convenience.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 30, 2021 8:16:27 GMT -8
Don’t know if this belongs on the Purple line forum or this one.... So I saw this on another forum. Wondering if this has any credence. So the potential cost of the hybrid option that takes Crenshaw North to WeHo is around d $6B. Meanwhile the low end of the LaBrea route is around $3B. And when Metro was studying alternatives for the Purple Line - the current Wilshire only option was choose due to lack of funds Metro estimates that the cost would be around $3B. If this isn’t true then discount the post but IF THIS IS TRUE and I’m not sure if it is - why in the world wouldn’t they choose LaBrea (end it at SM/LaBrea) and then do the HRT extension from Hollywood to the Westside. The more coverage the metro system has and the more locations it goes too - the more I think it will not just gain its normal projected riders but also riders not accounted for whose whole attitude about metro will change based on the overwhelming convenience. When they designed the purple line they nixed the requisite connection structure that would have allowed for a heavy rail interlined connection. To build one now would involve shutting the purple line down for a few years like the red line with the new vermont line if they go that route. I hope metro plans more for the future and we don’t run into this again. For them to build heavy rail without interlining with the purple would be very difficult with nowhere to put a yard, so it would want to be light rail with a track connection to Crenshaw, which is why a lot of us are pushing for the consideration of a light rail spur line that effectively accomplishes the same thing. But we can build the connection structure in from the start on the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on May 31, 2021 5:54:29 GMT -8
Don’t know if this belongs on the Purple line forum or this one.... So I saw this on another forum. Wondering if this has any credence. So the potential cost of the hybrid option that takes Crenshaw North to WeHo is around d $6B. Meanwhile the low end of the LaBrea route is around $3B. And when Metro was studying alternatives for the Purple Line - the current Wilshire only option was choose due to lack of funds Metro estimates that the cost would be around $3B. If this isn’t true then discount the post but IF THIS IS TRUE and I’m not sure if it is - why in the world wouldn’t they choose LaBrea (end it at SM/LaBrea) and then do the HRT extension from Hollywood to the Westside. The more coverage the metro system has and the more locations it goes too - the more I think it will not just gain its normal projected riders but also riders not accounted for whose whole attitude about metro will change based on the overwhelming convenience. When they designed the purple line they nixed the requisite connection structure that would have allowed for a heavy rail interlined connection. To build one now would involve shutting the purple line down for a few years like the red line with the new vermont line if they go that route. I hope metro plans more for the future and we don’t run into this again. For them to build heavy rail without interlining with the purple would be very difficult with nowhere to put a yard, so it would want to be light rail with a track connection to Crenshaw, which is why a lot of us are pushing for the consideration of a light rail spur line that effectively accomplishes the same thing. But we can build the connection structure in from the start on the other side. But does the financial point still stand? If it does then it wouldnt the only part of the purple line that would need to be shut down would be the point at which the “pink line” would merge? .. which would be 1 station on the west side. Also, the spur probably isn’t the best idea because I’d imagine you’re proposing it go to La Cienga and Metro has already said connections to the purple line there don’t like properly so you’d be looking at a roughly 1300ft walk. And that’s a No No. In addition to properly done expansion one of metros main objectives needs to be reconfiguring it’s brutally bad transfers (expo Crenshaw first and foremost)To me it would be SO worth it. You’re likely adding ridership and you’re taking off enormous pressure the purple line will eventually have when the Sepulveda and eventual Vermont lines are completed. There are 3 - maybe 4 routes that currently demand HRT in my estimation. ***SM BLVD to West Side via WeHo • Pink Line Van Nuys ML station to SoFi • SepulvedaNorth Hollywood to Vermont/Athens • Red Line SM Beach to Arts District or East LA • Purple LineI think you’re going to need at least the big 3 of those (the last 3) fully completed before ridership really takes off and the mobility patterns of Angelinos start to move in the rapid direction of mass transit the way we’d like it too. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 31, 2021 6:59:54 GMT -8
That base cost has probably risen since that study so I doubt 3 billion is exactly right, plus the connection structure cost would be significantly higher now because you're adding in demolition of newly-built tunnel section and mitigations for the closed purple line - but the idea a partial spur plus la brea can be built for the price of the hybrid is likely correct. And they would have to shut down the entire purple line on the other side of the connection structure, not just at the point of construction - the trains on the other side would be isolated with no yard access. The idea of shutting down the purple line just after it opens is probably a non-starter. It would be akin to the insane misstep of shutting down almost the entire crenshaw line to grade separate centinela, except this is even more complicated and will take longer. I really don't see metro buying this in a realistic universe. it'd be the 2nd line in a row of them throwing absurd amounts of money at a line to open it later to add something they should've put there from the start - politically, it'd be a disaster.
As for the spur, the original connection issue was because the crenshaw line (in the san vicente alignment) would've been traveling up san vicente, and thus the station would be under wilshire/san vicente while the purple station is at wilshire/la cienega. In La Brea+Spur, the crenshaw connects at la brea insead, and the spur coming down would just stay on la cienega and be extended south on la cienega later, thus the station would be right at the purple line station and have no connection issue. Headed south, it can hit the culver city station and go down venice to the beach.
Whether or not HRT would be the best for this route, metro already fumbled the clearest way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 1, 2021 16:51:57 GMT -8
andert pretty much covered it all... I will add two more points:
1. Operational constraint was another reason why Metro was not enthusiastic about the original Pink line heavy rail. Purple line is already interlined with Red line so if Pink line went ahead as another Purple line spur, it will further reduce the Purple line frequency and capacity from West LA to DTLA.
2. While it is simple to say Pink line was too expensive to justify, the real reason is because the ridership didn't pencil out given the cost (and actually lowered the Purple line cost efficiency for Federal funding formula). In another word, the SMB corridor can't support heavy rail. This is somewhat evident by bus ridership... Metro 4/704 doesn't carry nearly as many people 20/720. In fact, it is way down the list after Wilshire, Vermont, Western, and Ventura. It is also below Sepulveda if you combine the SFV and West LA portion of the Sepulveda which is similar length as 4/704.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 2, 2021 2:59:58 GMT -8
andert pretty much covered it all... I will add two more points: 1. Operational constraint was another reason why Metro was not enthusiastic about the original Pink line heavy rail. Purple line is already interlined with Red line so if Pink line went ahead as another Purple line spur, it will further reduce the Purple line frequency and capacity from West LA to DTLA. 2. While it is simple to say Pink line was too expensive to justify, the real reason is because the ridership didn't pencil out given the cost (and actually lowered the Purple line cost efficiency for Federal funding formula). In another word, the SMB corridor can't support heavy rail. This is somewhat evident by bus ridership... Metro 4/704 doesn't carry nearly as many people 20/720. In fact, it is way down the list after Wilshire, Vermont, Western, and Ventura. It is also below Sepulveda if you combine the SFV and West LA portion of the Sepulveda which is similar length as 4/704. Good points. Interesting that they didn’t think the ridership could sustain HRT. Yes LRT might be more ridership appropriate but if the cost is the same wouldn’t it be better to have a 1 seat ride (actually now that I type that I see I’m leaving out the whole part about it reducing capacity on the Purple) I can understand them leaving out the Pink line if that’s the case but i CANT for the life of me see why they didn’t extend the line to Santa Monica. Yea the Expo Line is popular. But I feel HRT to the beach would see enormous ridership. To me this is one of the 3 major sins Metro has committed ESFV not being one line with Sepulveda is breathtakingly incompetent), then you have Blue/Expo Flower St disaster and of course Purple to the Beach. Some questions for you or anyone who wants them; Also, spur that’s talked about on here. Where do you guys see that spur eventually going? To Venice or rejoining the Crenshaw Line? How many routes would you say should have HRT? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 2, 2021 9:58:57 GMT -8
Purple line extension to Santa Monica suffered from the same math problem as Pink line. On paper it made sense but when you starting crunching numbers for Federal funding formula, it dragged down the score. A couple of issues:
1. There was no reliable model for Sepulveda line transfer to Purple line back when Purple line extension was going thru EIR so it was basically ignored.
2. Metro believed in order to get ridership high enough to qualify for Federal funding, it has to have three stations West of Westwood (4th/Downtown, Midtown/UCLA Hospital, Brentwood) which drove up the cost projection.
3. Expo line was the new thing and there were lots of people, even some right here on this message board that believed it is unfair that Santa Monica is even in the running for a 2nd rail line. Transit racism charge was rampant despite the fact a Purple line extension to Santa Monica would probably benefit people that were doing long distance commute on 720 from East LA - i.e. not white people.
At the end, Metro decided to exclude it so not to jeopardize Federal funding for the Western to Westwood portion. But transit racism factor was probably high on the mind of some Metro decision makers at the time when Metro was trying to get out of its consent decree with Bus Riders Union (a nonsensical group of people that ruined transit planning and construction for nearly a decade).
But fortunately in this case, Metro is leaving tail track at the VA station so extending the line westward is fairly straightforward. Additionally, it won't have operational impact of branching line the Pink line so I would still say that this will happen eventually.
~~~
Your second question about where the spur should end up is entire hypothetical but I do believe andert (whom I credit for coming up with the spur idea, or at least molded it in its current understandable form) prefers it continue south on La Cienega to Expo line at Venice Blvd, then down Venice Blvd to Venice Beach. I think it is a decent option.
~~~
Your third question about HRT corridor... I say there are three: Wilshire, Sepulveda, and Vermont. A 4th corridor should be considered in the long run is Ventura.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 2, 2021 10:05:22 GMT -8
I'd see the spur line eventually evolving into a line that goes from venice beach to el monte or la puente, via culver city, the weho spur, hollywood along santa monica, silverlake, echo park, union, and the pacific electric ROW - so not part of the crenshaw on the south end.
As for HRT, if an EIR says a route can support it and there isn't a reason it needs to be built as an extension of an LRT line, I'm down. I think in addition to the existing corridors Sepulveda and Vermont are obviously HRT corridors. I think there's a chance other corridors beyond measure M could be dense enough to support HRT by the time we actually build them, but we're over a decade from considering most of those.
|
|
