|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 27, 2018 10:40:12 GMT -8
Obviously not but he viability of San Vicente as a route isn’t dependent on their extra funding but in convincing residential stakeholders on San Vicente to allow the long at grade and aerial sections that make it affordable. Every deviation from the baseline to accomadate stakeholders is going to seriously impact the cost of San Vicente. So we ho has three battles. They have to fight the people in the SFR at grade sections and they have to fight the VMT numbers and they have to fight the transit dependent ridership on la brea that will be advocating for their route This means we ho is going to be actively challenging every assumption, like the idea that it only generates 3000 more trips. Etc etc It’s going to be a very big fight. Not only is la brea reducing more VMT by a large margin but it also serves more transit dependent riders and serves more residential areas with zero car ownership and the entirety of the route is contained within a pretty dense corridor versus the extra miles through SFR that San Vicente requires. But! La brea is also dependent on being aerial most of the route, any shift to subterranean makes it incredibly expensive.That is the fun of a study like this to see where the battles will lie. This is my exact assessment of this corridor because the reason La Brea is the most cost effective is because it is elevated if the nearby Hancock Park community or business owners are up and arms over La Brea being elevated that will increase its costs to where it all has to be underground negating the cost-effectiveness advantages it has. San Vicente/La Cienega alignments has the same concerns. And when the costs rises Fairfax starts to look pretty damn good. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 27, 2018 10:52:00 GMT -8
A lot to chew on after reading the entire document. I agree Fairfax is dead on arrival. Too expensive and doesn't get significant ridership bonus. And also agree that this will be a show down between La Cienega and La Brea. Weho obviously will be controlling the PR on La Cienega... I wonder who will speak for La Brea? I don't think so, Fairfax looks like the compromise that will be in everyone's back pocket once the costs rise for the La Brea alignment needing it all underground if the community and new mid-rise 2nd and 3rd story residents don't want an elevated structure in front of their facades. Same thing is true for San Vicente/La Cienega. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2018 12:35:41 GMT -8
A lot to chew on after reading the entire document. I agree Fairfax is dead on arrival. Too expensive and doesn't get significant ridership bonus. And also agree that this will be a show down between La Cienega and La Brea. Weho obviously will be controlling the PR on La Cienega... I wonder who will speak for La Brea? I don't think so, Fairfax looks like the compromise that will be in everyone's back pocket once the costs rise for the La Brea alignment needing it all underground if the community and new mid-rise 2nd and 3rd story residents don't want an elevated structure in front of their facades. Same thing is true for San Vicente/La Cienega. I actually kind of think la brea is going to succeed with aerial throughout this process because it’s basically all aerial other than the section from expo to midtown. That is to say, in order to argue for subway you have to argue for it to be all subway, they’re not going to succeed in forcing it to roller coaster up and down la brea for one neighborhood or another. Think back to expo, overland was going to be elevated and they fought hard to get a subway under overland and as a result they got a surface street widening and an at grade option instead. Everyone was worse off and they didn’t get what they wanted. Fairfax is just too narrow and I think it won’t be recommended for advancement due to issues with station placement staging yards and other capital considerations. Looking at the numbers, it’s insane to be trying to do this with one light rail line whose headways are constrained by grade crossings twelve miles away. Looking at the numbers the demand for a fast grade separated north south option is so incredibly massive that the line out performs the purple line extension and performs at 97% of the passenger load of a line that has 400% more Jobs. Those are incredible numbers indicative of unprecedented demand. Phil Washington said recently on the talking headways podcast that we can’t just make transit capital investments trying to entice non users to use transit, we have to think about these capital investments as to how they will be taken up by transit users. And la breas best argument is that it is what transit users need more than any of the other routes. Hence the remarkable ridership for the line. But then the numbers for the WeHo Jaunt are absolutely undeniable. There are very few rail lines that could perform as well as the red to purple weho route. We really should build both. If we’re building two east side extensions, there is a much stronger argument to build both la brea and San Vicente. The question is how to position the SMB line for future extensions. What if the SMB line extended from Glendale to venice? To downtown and Venice? U turned to Ventura Blvd? Lots of different ways to think about how if it could be repositioned. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 27, 2018 15:14:11 GMT -8
I don't think so, Fairfax looks like the compromise that will be in everyone's back pocket once the costs rise for the La Brea alignment needing it all underground if the community and new mid-rise 2nd and 3rd story residents don't want an elevated structure in front of their facades. Same thing is true for San Vicente/La Cienega. I actually kind of think la brea is going to succeed with aerial throughout this process because it’s basically all aerial other than the section from expo to midtown.That is to say, in order to argue for subway you have to argue for it to be all subway, they’re not going to succeed in forcing it to roller coaster up and down la brea for one neighborhood or another. And my point is in the realm of political reality, will the residents and business along La Brea Avenue accept an elevated structure in front of their business/residence? And if they start as a subway in Hollywood they will continue boring that tube all the way down to at least Midtown. Think back to expo, overland was going to be elevated and they fought hard to get a subway under overland and as a result they got a surface street widening and an at grade option instead. Everyone was worse off and they didn’t get what they wanted. Overland was never going to be an elevated crossing because it was a boarder-line crossing that was considered for grade separation. Fairfax is just too narrow and I think it won’t be recommended for advancement due to issues with station placement staging yards and other capital considerations. Looking at the numbers, it’s insane to be trying to do this with one light rail line whose headways are constrained by grade crossings twelve miles away. Looking at the numbers the demand for a fast grade separated north south option is so incredibly massive that the line out performs the purple line extension and performs at 97% of the passenger load of a line that has 400% more Jobs. Those are incredible numbers indicative of unprecedented demand. Phil Washington said recently on the talking headways podcast that we can’t just make transit capital investments trying to entice non users to use transit, we have to think about these capital investments as to how they will be taken up by transit users. And la breas best argument is that it is what transit users need more than any of the other routes. Hence the remarkable ridership for the line. But then the numbers for the WeHo Jaunt are absolutely undeniable. There are very few rail lines that could perform as well as the red to purple weho route. Right because the one advantage all the alternatives has is that there is no freeway to compete with to make the trip so the travel competitiveness with the car will be unique to where the questions will be is the objective speed or access? However the advantage of the contained grade separation is that they can run more service to lets say Hollywood to Leimert Park to handle that demand. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 27, 2018 15:15:49 GMT -8
I think someone earlier in the thread proposed building an E-W spur in WeHo on Santa Monica Blvd which can be extended in the future. This may provide enough political cover for Metro to go all-in on La Brea N-S.
I do like the idea of a line that starts in Venice Beach on Venice then goes north on La Cienega to Santa Monica, then east to Silver Lake. It can then link up with WASB to create a high ridership line from Venice Beach all the way to Artesia.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2018 15:24:24 GMT -8
I actually kind of think la brea is going to succeed with aerial throughout this process because it’s basically all aerial other than the section from expo to midtown.That is to say, in order to argue for subway you have to argue for it to be all subway, they’re not going to succeed in forcing it to roller coaster up and down la brea for one neighborhood or another. And my point is in the realm of political reality of will the residents and business along La Brea Avenue accept an elevated structure in front of their business/residence? And if they start as a subway in Hollywood they will continue boring that tube all the way down to at least Midtown. Think back to expo, overland was going to be elevated and they fought hard to get a subway under overland and as a result they got a surface street widening and an at grade option instead. Everyone was worse off and they didn’t get what they wanted. Overland was never going to be an elevated crossing because it was a boarder-line crossing that was considered for grade separation. Fairfax is just too narrow and I think it won’t be recommended for advancement due to issues with station placement staging yards and other capital considerations. Looking at the numbers, it’s insane to be trying to do this with one light rail line whose headways are constrained by grade crossings twelve miles away. Looking at the numbers the demand for a fast grade separated north south option is so incredibly massive that the line out performs the purple line extension and performs at 97% of the passenger load of a line that has 400% more Jobs. Those are incredible numbers indicative of unprecedented demand. Phil Washington said recently on the talking headways podcast that we can’t just make transit capital investments trying to entice non users to use transit, we have to think about these capital investments as to how they will be taken up by transit users. And la breas best argument is that it is what transit users need more than any of the other routes. Hence the remarkable ridership for the line. But then the numbers for the WeHo Jaunt are absolutely undeniable. There are very few rail lines that could perform as well as the red to purple weho route. Right because the one advantage all the alternatives has is that there is no freeway to compete with to make the trip so the travel competitiveness with the car will be unique. However the advantage of the contained grade separation is that they can run more service to lets say Hollywood to Leimert Park to handle that demand. It isn’t necessarily starting subway in Hollywood Imagine an elevated station terminus above the intersection but beneath the station is an elevated pedestrian plaza/crosswalk, like the elevated pedestrian crosswalks in Las Vegas. That allows vehicles to flow through the intersection Better and also allows pedestrians to circulate through the intersection more freely. The elevated portions of expo are not ugly and I think people are more used to the idea now because of those sections. And there is something to be said for mode consistency. Since it is 51% aerial no one block is being treated differently that massively decreases potential points of conflict with stakeholders. Ultimately, metro should take a look at Clayton Nall’s research: He’s discovered that support for transit is not dependent on transit’s impact on stakeholders, support for transit is dependent on stakeholder’s partisanship. One need only look at the map of precinct by precinct 2016 election data the NYT posted today, Hancock park is an island of moderate democrats in a sea of extreme democrats. It is merely a question of mobilization, it looks like most of the area will be 8-2 or 7-3 in favor of rail, probably however metro wants to build it. But in all likely hood the scam lawsuit groups will be the only ones doing any organizing. The question is which scam group will be more successful the scam group opposing la brea or the scam group opposing San Vicente ? |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 27, 2018 15:41:38 GMT -8
It isn’t necessarily starting subway in Hollywood Imagine an elevated station terminus above the intersection but beneath the station is an elevated pedestrian plaza/crosswalk, like the elevated pedestrian crosswalks in Las Vegas. That allows vehicles to flow through the intersection Bette and pedestrians to circulate through the intersection more freely. I am looking per the study at pages 88 and 94 of the pdf or images 2-25 and 2-26 there are two options; 1) An at grade station on Hollywood and Orange and, 2) A subway station at Hollywood and Highland He’s discovered that support for transit is not dependent on transit’s impact on stakeholders, support for transit is dependent on stakeholder’s partisanship. One need only look at the map of precinct by precinct 2016 election data the NYT posted today, Hancock park is an island of moderate democrats in a sea of extreme democrats. It is merely a question of mobilization, it looks like most of the area will be 8-2 or 7-3 in favor of rail, probably however metro wants to build it. But in all likely hood the scam lawsuit groups will be the only ones doing any organizing. The question is which scam group will be more successful the scam group opposing la brea or the scam group opposing San Vicente? Or which scam groups will cancel each other out and Metro goes with the path of least resistance (which will likely be Fairfax). However the very demographic composition you accurately articulated and it's proximity to La Brea is why I reserve my caution of such a vertical profiled alignment. Because they have mobilized before; With SB 827 it were Hancock Park, Carthay Circle and Mid Wilshire communities along with Leimert Park who were most vocal against this. And in 2017 Measure S campaign that got started in Hancock Park by Jill Stewart! |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2018 15:45:40 GMT -8
Look at the inset for the terminus on he executive summary page for the la brea option. They aren’t detailed later but they are options.
Highland has three options aerial station
Cut and cover station to aerial
Bored tunnel from la brea smb
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 27, 2018 17:09:23 GMT -8
It isn’t necessarily starting subway in Hollywood Imagine an elevated station terminus above the intersection but beneath the station is an elevated pedestrian plaza/crosswalk, like the elevated pedestrian crosswalks in Las Vegas. That allows vehicles to flow through the intersection Bette and pedestrians to circulate through the intersection more freely. I am looking per the study at pages 88 and 94 of the pdf or images 2-25 and 2-26 there are two options; 1) An at grade station on Hollywood and Orange and, 2) A subway station at Hollywood and Highland He’s discovered that support for transit is not dependent on transit’s impact on stakeholders, support for transit is dependent on stakeholder’s partisanship. One need only look at the map of precinct by precinct 2016 election data the NYT posted today, Hancock park is an island of moderate democrats in a sea of extreme democrats. It is merely a question of mobilization, it looks like most of the area will be 8-2 or 7-3 in favor of rail, probably however metro wants to build it. But in all likely hood the scam lawsuit groups will be the only ones doing any organizing. The question is which scam group will be more successful the scam group opposing la brea or the scam group opposing San Vicente? Or which scam groups will cancel each other out and Metro goes with the path of least resistance (which will likely be Fairfax). However the very demographic composition you accurately articulated and it's proximity to La Brea is why I reserve my caution of such a vertical profiled alignment. Because they have mobilized before; SB 827? Measure S? There’s no way fairfax is the path of least resistance. Since Vermont is already not recommended to move forward, fairfax is the most expensive option and last time they tried fairfax it met with local state and federal opposition. I very seriously expect that fairfax will not be recommended for advancement because la brea achieves 99.66% of the fairfax ridership for 63.83% of the fairfax cost. And metro can’t back down from elevated la brea and in favor of fairfax subway, because if they are serious about a fairfax subway then they will have to consider the la brea subway which will undoubtedly be cheaper than the fairfax subway simply by being 1.3 miles shorter. And given the ridership figures for la brea elevated fairfax is going to have a much more stark set of dis advantages over a fully underground la brea. That won’t be a win for fairfax. If la brea is studied for underground the full alignment it will probably have more ridership than fairfax, currently fairfax subway only projects to 300 more riders than la brea elevated. It would take very little to push la brea over the edge. I think there is a long term strategy at play here. Metro needs to be able to build elevated light rail in a lot of places that don’t have right of ways available, and if they can set a precedent with la brea they can get elevated heavy rail on Vermont and they can get elevated rail on the east side extension etc. they can’t start elevated in those areas because of transit racism accusations, but if they can successfully do it on la brea and it’s the best fight against congestion metros ever made well now they have an incredibly strong argument to those communities congestion relief is achievable without unachievable subway. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 27, 2018 23:41:32 GMT -8
There’s no way fairfax is the path of least resistance. Since Vermont is already not recommended to move forward, fairfax is the most expensive option and last time they tried fairfax it met with local state and federal opposition. I very seriously expect that fairfax will not be recommended for advancement because la brea achieves 99.66% of the fairfax ridership for 63.83% of the fairfax cost. I've seen a lot of these play out in my near 20 years in Transit advocacy when the cost of said alignment and it's vertical profile are too good to be true. Which is why I think when this goes out in the street with public meetings there will be a strong concern about La Brea from both WeHo advocates and NIMBYs from Hancock Park. Google this up, last time Fairfax met with 'opposition' it was because of the methane gas explosion due to poor ventilation, which prompted Congressman Henry Waxman to put a Federal ban on tunneling through the district, which we have now solved because we're building the Purple Line underground right now through those very methane gas zones so that's a facile argument! And if there was any corridor to try an elevated approach when that was going down it would have been Wilshire even after the Prop A & C funding ban for subways that could have built that. And metro can’t back down from elevated la brea and in favor of fairfax subway, because if they are serious about a fairfax subway then they will have to consider the la brea subway which will undoubtedly be cheaper than the fairfax subway simply by being 1.3 miles shorter. And given the ridership figures for la brea elevated fairfax is going to have a much more stark set of dis advantages over a fully underground la brea. That won’t be a win for fairfax. If la brea is studied for underground the full alignment it will probably have more ridership than fairfax, currently fairfax subway only projects to 300 more riders than la brea elevated. It would take very little to push la brea over the edge. When the bean counters price this out the costs will be about $450-500M cheaper for La Brea underground and that is if the elevated portion stays at Pico/San Vicente, given the proximity that may become an underground station which negates the cost-effectiveness given that Fairfax has 1500 more riders not 300, (88,700 vs 87,200 per Page 31 or ES-36) if La Brea goes underground the ridership numbers are not going to improve because the corridor under study is already grade separated so the numbers will be very similar to what is there now. BTW it will be the Metro Board of Directors who will ultimately decide with deference to Supervisor Sheila Kuehl(her County District) and Mayor Eric Garcetti; with respect to City Councilmembers Mitch O'Farrell, David Ryu and Herb Wesson whose districts will have this project run through so understanding the will of a political constituency will matter. I think there is a long term strategy at play here. Metro needs to be able to build elevated light rail in a lot of places that don’t have right of ways available, and if they can set a precedent with la brea they can get elevated heavy rail on Vermont and they can get elevated rail on the east side extension etc. they can’t start elevated in those areas because of transit racism accusations, but if they can successfully do it on la brea and it’s the best fight against congestion metros ever made well now they have an incredibly strong argument to those communities congestion relief is achievable without unachievable subway. I agree, however for this corridor that tactic without a valid or organized support system like a Friends for Expo or WHAM is the approach that will delay elevated grade separated rail for future corridors. A better corridor would have been Sepulveda Blvd for the West LA to LAX portion of the Sepulveda pass, why because its next to the freeway, demographics of the area, plus the regional travel need is for a direct approach. Or even I would say the South Bay Green Line Extension down Hawthorne Blvd would be a great opportunity for elevated rail. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 30, 2018 15:52:05 GMT -8
Interesting arguments on La Brea vs. Fairfax. When the current report came out last week, I was a little surprised by the small ridership difference between La Brea and Fairfax, thus I concluded that Fairfax was done for. But Jared made a good point (which I also noted 4 years ago): if La Brea is forced underground, it may drive up the cost to the point where Fairfax makes more sense - it always did absent the "money is no object" solution of building TWO N-S rail in mid city. I decided to look back to the earlier part of the thread to see what people said and debated. Anyway, quoting myself from 2010... I don't think the pink line HRT via Santa Monica Blvd is ever going to come back so absent that, Fairfax is really the best option for northern extension of Crenshaw line. If pink line had managed to survive the purple line Wilshire EIR, then La Brea would be more ideal for northern extension of Crenshaw line... a faster more direct line. And again from 2014... There wasn't any meaningful opposition to the Purple line extension or the Fairfax station at LACMA this time around so I think there won't be much of any resistance to Crenshaw line, especially the fact that Purple line will be in service in this area by the time EIR is locked in on Crenshaw phase 2. I think anyone trying to block Crenshaw will draw the community's ire rather than support. On the subject of ridership, we have empirical evidence. Bus ridership is much higher on Fairfax than La Brea. We also know day-time density is higher on Fairfax due to proximity to some major employers and destinations. The likely construction costs difference will not be that big because either La Brea or Fairfax will likely have the same number of stations (stations is the biggest cost factor). Tunneling costs on an extra mile or so of detour is likely very marginal compare to the total cost of the project. And 2016... I like La Brea route, which is the fastest (and likely cheapest). I like La Cienega route, which serves more destinations and employment centers, but likely most expensive and slow. So I think a Fairfax compromise will be reached, which is not terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 31, 2018 9:52:34 GMT -8
As I said before, of the options put forth by Metro, I prefer the WeHo options. But IMO, these options have two flaws: (1) they meander through lower-density neighborhoods along San Vicente, and (2) they do not connect well to the Purple Line subway (aerial to subway transfer with a 10-minute walk).
I think a much better option would be to build two smaller, connected lines:
- La Brea Avenue from Crenshaw to Hollywood; and
- Santa Monica Blvd from WeHo to Hollywood.
This solution would satisfy the desire for a fast shot up to Hollywood, while simultaneously serving WeHo and the dense Santa Monica Blvd corridor.
The total ridership would be very high, but so would the price tag. But I would even be willing to support this if it didn't hit Hollywood/Highland (and just made a simple L-shape).
It would be great if Metro staff could consider an alternative like this. Politically, this would only work if it were built as a single project. WeHo could raise funds toward its part, and the City of LA could do a tax increment for its part.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 5, 2018 14:28:31 GMT -8
Here is West Hollywood’s analysis of the Crenshaw North feasibility study. They do not recommend selecting a preferred alignment at this time, but their comments hint that they only like the San Vincente/La Cienega options (by stating that the other options do not seem to serve West Hollywood well): weho.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=1071&meta_id=155323 |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 5, 2018 15:27:30 GMT -8
I don't think there is going to be any organized lobbying for Fairfax or La Brea, so WeHo probably has the pie halfway baked already.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 5, 2018 20:39:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 10, 2018 16:54:18 GMT -8
And here comes the cost escalations...
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 10, 2018 17:26:20 GMT -8
Sounds like the West Hollywood advocates are inadvertently making la brea vastly more likely.
I guess one can’t have a gay pride parade if there’s an elevated train in the Vicinity? I didn’t realize trains were such a parade deterrent!
Someone alert midwestern and southern politicians and we will have a plethora of elevated train lines suddenly sprouting all over the country!
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 19, 2018 20:20:48 GMT -8
Sounds like the West Hollywood advocates are inadvertently making la brea vastly more likely. I guess one can’t have a gay pride parade if there’s an elevated train in the Vicinity? I didn’t realize trains were such a parade deterrent! Someone alert midwestern and southern politicians and we will have a plethora of elevated train lines suddenly sprouting all over the country! WeHo is giving La Brea businesses all the ammo it needs to shoot the elevated suggestion down (which I said will happen two months ago) which in turn given the escalating costs of La Brea and La Cienega/San Vicente corridors will make Fairfax which is studied to already be underground look like a cost-effective solution. And here comes the cost escalations... Yep here comes Fairfax starting to look like a cost-effective regionally significant compromise |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 19, 2018 21:32:00 GMT -8
Sounds like the West Hollywood advocates are inadvertently making la brea vastly more likely. I guess one can’t have a gay pride parade if there’s an elevated train in the Vicinity? I didn’t realize trains were such a parade deterrent! Someone alert midwestern and southern politicians and we will have a plethora of elevated train lines suddenly sprouting all over the country! WeHo is giving La Brea businesses all the ammo it needs to shoot the elevated suggestion down (which I said will happen two months ago) which in turn given the escalating costs of La Brea and La Cienega/San Vicente corridors will make Fairfax which is studied to already be underground look like a cost-effective solution. And here comes the cost escalations... Yep here comes Fairfax starting to look like a cost-effective regionally significant compromise Hmm but if Fairfax and one of the la Cienega options are not advanced to the next stage then it won’t be available as a compromise. And with Fairfax so much more expensive for so little advantage to la brea I do not think it will advance. Partly because of engineering, geography and politics. It is already the most expensive and because of those three things it also has the highest risk of becoming much more expensive as it goes through the process and gets all the expensive change orders added into the design. La brea on the other hand is designed to be resistant to those sorts of design change orders because of its all aerial design. if it were roller coastering it would be an extreme risk to be change ordered into subway instead and have gargantuan cost escalation as a result. It also has the least amount of political risk of any of the routes, and it has the most straightforward geography and engineering in terms of routing, as well as the widest street. I think metro knows, too, that Fairfax is likely to become a compromise route and likely to become massively more expensive as a result of its risky geography and geometry problems. So they will wind up not advancing it. And that means that metro will eventually be faced with a San Vicente route that is now at least 1 billion more expensive and all that amount is unfunded or a la brea route that is fully funded. Gee I wonder which one they will pick then? |
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Sept 20, 2018 11:48:19 GMT -8
When I complain about how Metro spends its money and how they should get a few projects done RIGHT, not a lot of projects done half assed - I’m always met with a reply of how Metro is a regional organization and that the Ballot measures often offer a piece of the pie to different regions of the county to earn their votes:
Well isn’t West Hollywood one of the most PRO-Metro parts of LA county? With that being said, wouldn’t going with La Brea be kind of a slap in the face to West Hollywood?
It sets a bad precedent when a city goes all in for Metro and then they get screwed on an important project like this.
Regardless, this job is one of Metro’s most important (IMO, Sepulveda, Crenshaw North and Vermont was most critical) it can’t be done halfway. Considering the density in where the line is traveling, anywhere north of Wilshire should be Subway, especially toward the upper end near Hollywood. And another major consideration for which route they choose should be how effectively it connects to the purple line
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 21, 2018 6:56:21 GMT -8
I'm so glad the West Hollywood is pushing for a line they want. They should be demanding. They may not get everything the desire, but just demanding representation gets things done. Look at S.F.V. vs S.G.V, one pushed for the gold line from the beginning relentlessly, while the other opposed everything Metro did. I think they will Choose Fairfax all subway. When I complain about how Metro spends its money and how they should get a few projects done RIGHT, not a lot of projects done half assed - I’m always met with a reply of how Metro is a regional organization and that the Ballot measures often offer a piece of the pie to different regions of the county to earn their votes: Well isn’t West Hollywood one of the most PRO-Metro parts of LA county? With that being said, wouldn’t going with La Brea be kind of a slap in the face to West Hollywood? It sets a bad precedent when a city goes all in for Metro and then they get screwed on an important project like this. Regardless, this job is one of Metro’s most important (IMO, Sepulveda, Crenshaw North and Vermont was most critical) it can’t be done halfway. Considering the density in where the line is traveling, anywhere north of Wilshire should be Subway, especially toward the upper end near Hollywood. And another major consideration for which route they choose should be how effectively it connects to the purple line |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 22, 2018 2:53:34 GMT -8
Hmm but if Fairfax and one of the la Cienega options are not advanced to the next stage then it won’t be available as a compromise. And with Fairfax so much more expensive for so little advantage to la brea I do not think it will advance. Partly because of engineering, geography and politics. It is already the most expensive and because of those three things it also has the highest risk of becoming much more expensive as it goes through the process and gets all the expensive change orders added into the design. La brea on the other hand is designed to be resistant to those sorts of design change orders because of its all aerial design. if it were roller coastering it would be an extreme risk to be change ordered into subway instead and have gargantuan cost escalation as a result. It also has the least amount of political risk of any of the routes, and it has the most straightforward geography and engineering in terms of routing, as well as the widest street. And if La Brea because of the political pressures becomes studied as an all underground route meaning the costs savings will virtually disappear like a fart in the wind, the route will face the same engineering challenges as you are claiming in Fairfax because this is still in the Methane Zone, will be greater in cost AND not serve enough of West Hollywood to where WeHo would support it. And that means that metro will eventually be faced with a San Vicente route that is now at least 1 billion more expensive and all that amount is unfunded or a la brea route that is fully funded. Gee I wonder which one they will pick then? Again you are falsely assuming that the Metro Board will not suggest any changes to the elevated La Brea route based on political pressure. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 22, 2018 6:39:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 22, 2018 16:09:03 GMT -8
That is impressive and encouraging, good on weho!
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 25, 2018 17:18:47 GMT -8
Like I said before, there is no organized advocacy for La Brea route so this is going to be one-sided process.
And I agree with Jared that WeHo is going to drive the cost up so much that Fairfax will come out being the most cost effective route and also a politically acceptable and face saving compromise for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 26, 2018 10:01:48 GMT -8
And the same holds true for Fairfax, if no one is advocating for it, metro is going to eliminate it as an expensive and problematic option.
It’s going to be a bit like Van Nuys, either a cheap option (bus) or an expensive option (LRT) and the expensive option usually wins in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Sept 26, 2018 12:27:20 GMT -8
And the same holds true for Fairfax, if no one is advocating for it, metro is going to eliminate it as an expensive and problematic option. It’s going to be a bit like Van Nuys, either a cheap option (bus) or an expensive option (LRT) and the expensive option usually wins in Los Angeles. Are you kidding me? The expensive option usually wins? They took out a station from the regional connector. They stopped the Purple line short of Santa Monica Vermont is being primed for pathetic BRT when it needs RAIL Van Nuys is being kept above ground which will make it a nightmare Sepulce slowed. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 26, 2018 15:31:19 GMT -8
And the same holds true for Fairfax, if no one is advocating for it, metro is going to eliminate it as an expensive and problematic option. It’s going to be a bit like Van Nuys, either a cheap option (bus) or an expensive option (LRT) and the expensive option usually wins in Los Angeles. Are you kidding me? The expensive option usually wins? They took out a station from the regional connector. They stopped the Purple line short of Santa Monica Vermont is being primed for pathetic BRT when it needs RAIL Van Nuys is being kept above ground which will make it a nightmare Sepulce slowed. The Regional Connector was supposed to have an above-ground component, the Purple Line, WSAB and Van Nuys lines were supposed to be BRT. In that context, the expensive options won. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 7, 2018 22:51:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 8, 2018 11:50:39 GMT -8
West Hollywood Advocates for Metro Rail (WHAM) That is pretty funny. "Wake me up before you go go!" |
|
