|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 25, 2008 23:55:46 GMT -8
The number of questions I have about this document, which is now supposed to be up for public comment and not yet finalized by the Board, is higher than the number of answer that could ever keep me satisfied.
I know that there is a lot of politics and inflation concerns trying to be projected into that report, so I can only guess why Expo Phase 2 appears so high and Crenshaw appears so far away. Of course, who cares about my guesses, or anyone else's for that matter.
I look forward to a lot of answers from the staff at future LRTP public hearings, and I also look forward to seeing our nation figuring out a way to stop these construction materials/labor cost increases cold...
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 26, 2008 20:43:02 GMT -8
well, I can't say that I'm crazy about the timetables or the pricetags, but I get the sinking feeling that those estimates aren't that far off the mark. after all, this is the MTA we're talking about.
I would love to see rail projects get built on time and under budget, but I would also love to see Arnold Schwarzenegger stop throwing catch-22 roadblocks at high speed rail ("we shouldn't fund the project until we see commitments from private investors, who won't show an interest in the project until we provide funds")
however, there is good news. I am glad to see the Regional Connector at the top of the list and the subway extension in there. I was also glad to see the Harbor Sub get a high ranking from the MTA.
the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of using DMUs for the Harbor Sub. it just seems like a reasonable compromise. Metrolink's existing equipment might not be appropriate for the corridor, but light rail would be too expensive and require too many changes/ too much new construction. DMU would provide right compromise between "LAX Express" and "Local Bus On Tracks"
sooner or later, we're going to have to electrify our Metrolink lines. from an environmental "Save the Earth/ Reduce Smog" perspective, diesel just isn't clean enough. but for the time being, DMU should be adequate.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 27, 2008 3:10:38 GMT -8
Well said, James--I couldn't have stated it better myself. Perhaps we're seeing the price of waiting too darn long for these projects, now that the consensus is in as to what is needed.
Furthermore, the cost increases seem to be out of control with respect to infrastructure--whether it's labor or materials, we've got to revisit what's going on here!
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 27, 2008 9:36:25 GMT -8
I know that there is a lot of politics and inflation concerns trying to be projected into that report, so I can only guess why Expo Phase 2 appears so high and Crenshaw appears so far away. If inflation is the reason, then why is Crenshaw, which is the slightly longer (7.25 miles from Expo to Century/Aviation), projected to open (and thus be built) 9 years later, 600 million less in cost?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 27, 2008 20:28:18 GMT -8
Only guesses, and guesses are a waste of everyone's time, but I can only suspect that by that time it'll be either cheaper because there's already a ROW, or it's slated to be a Busway, or that number is entirely pie-in-the-sky and/or it's to ensure that it's NOT merely a Busway but subject to huge cost increases (as with Expo or other projects).
Frankly, at this time, I couldn't give a hoot about what's projected for decades in the future with respect to budgets. I just want Expo and Crenshaw to be rail, not Busway, because it's best for the community and I intend to make sure each project is enhanced anyway that could be possibly conceived.
When it comes to inflation and politics, there's so much hocus-pocus nonsense that very little should be taken seriously--it's like predicting who'll win the next presidential election, or what the stock market will do next. Oh, sure, everyone has their opinion...but no one really knows!
Perhaps Expo Phase 2 is overbudgetted so that the Board can crow about it coming underbudget. Perhaps there's a movement afoot behind the scenes to relegate Crenshaw to a Busway. Again, who knows?
It's now up for us to comment on this potential LRTP, which is by no means a done deal and really means nothing because a successful fall funding effort and/or a new president could mean a whole new ballgame.
The Transit Coalition has and will continue to fight for a good Expo, Crenshaw, Green/LAX, Downtown Connector and even Foothill Gold Line at least to Azusa. We'll also fight for a good Wilshire Subway as well, and a Whittier Eastside Gold Line extension. They're all good projects, and they deserve our support.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 30, 2008 9:29:41 GMT -8
BART does not go to Marin County because they foolishly did not buy into the system when it started. I imagine they regret that now.
BART is continually expanding. I think BART is wonderful. I used to ride it every day to work and when the San Francisco Bay Bridge fell down after the 1989 quake, BART kept running safely and hummed along.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 31, 2008 12:29:38 GMT -8
Regarding LA Metro, BART and other expensive transit projects: We might not be having this discussion if it weren't for James Mills, who, as a state Senator, pushed the legislation that made the original San Diego Trolley possible. This was the "starter line" that showed Southern California that electric railways had a place in the future as well as the past. Many years later I met Sen. Mills on a "preview" excursion on the SD Trolley Santee extension. I mentioned that I was from the San Gabriel Valley and was looking forward to what we now call the Gold Line. I've forgotted the numbers he gave me but the message was that the line could have been built for much less than it actually cost. There used to be publication called "Traction Yearbook", which carried several comments about "overbuilt" light rail systems, with "overhead that could support the Pennsylvania Railroad's main line" and other costly features that didn't move people any faster than cheaper alternatives. In other words, if modern rail projects need "consultants", there should be a "designated tightwad" who can say about a proposed design element "this is ridiculous--we can do it cheaper and still have a safe, reliable railway."
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 10, 2008 18:53:38 GMT -8
" I've forgotted the numbers he gave me but the message was that the line could have been built for much less than it actually cost. There used to be publication called "Traction Yearbook", which carried several comments about "overbuilt" light rail systems, with "overhead that could support the Pennsylvania Railroad's main line" and other costly features that didn't move people any faster than cheaper alternatives. "
What aspects of the Gold Line are overbuilt?
|
|