|
Post by macross287 on Jul 6, 2012 21:30:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jul 9, 2012 16:01:42 GMT -8
ive always believed that metro wasn't truly serious about closing the gap it was just talk to please folks who want to see highways expanded and fixed. The 710 gap just never struck me a a seriuos project. it seems like it was just put on the list of highway projects just for the sake of showing the San Gabriel Valley projects in their region. Too much litigation and the cost is astronomical it really isn't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 13, 2012 13:14:41 GMT -8
A new Measure J page is up on the metro website: www.metro.net/projects/measurej/I thought I supported it, but I have my doubts about several aspects: - There are too many highway projects for my taste.
- The acceleration is not enough in the needed cases (Downtown connector and the Wilshire subway).
- Much of the acceleration is not much faster than is projected without the measure (look at the breakdown of acceleration per project).
- There is not enough information about the projected costs of debt servicing. If I were to get a mortgage, I would have an exact breakdown of the total payments for interest and capital on a yearly basis. It isn't that hard to make a projection.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 13, 2012 15:21:44 GMT -8
A new Measure J page is up on the metro website: www.metro.net/projects/measurej/I thought I supported it, but I have my doubts about several aspects: - There are too many highway projects for my taste.
- The acceleration is not enough in the needed cases (Downtown connector and the Wilshire subway).
- Much of the acceleration is not much faster than is projected without the measure (look at the breakdown of acceleration per project).
- There is not enough information about the projected costs of debt servicing. If I were to get a mortgage, I would have an exact breakdown of the total payments for interest and capital on a yearly basis. It isn't that hard to make a projection.
Highways are 20%. Same as Measure R. I could do without them too, but this shouldn't be news. On the Westside Subway and the Connector, they can't physically build them any faster than this and even this may be a stretch, especially if the lawsuits cause problems which is likely. If Measure J fails, my hope is that they can get the Connector and most if not all of the Subway accelerated per the same schedule using just the federal loans (TIFIA).
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 13, 2012 15:39:48 GMT -8
Highways are 20%. Same as Measure R. I could do without them too, but this shouldn't be news. On the Westside Subway and the Connector, they can't physically build them any faster than this and even this may be a stretch, especially if the lawsuits cause problems which is likely. If Measure J fails, my hope is that they can get the Connector and most if not all of the Subway accelerated per the same schedule using just the federal loans (TIFIA). So if there's a hope of accelerating the two projects that really need it without the measure, I guess I wouldn't be too upset if it doesn't pass. I really hope that the federal loans come through, though.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 22, 2013 16:31:09 GMT -8
Here is my hope for a possible Measure R+ in 2016.
1. Transit tax threshold is reduced to 55% by State Legislature.
2. New Measure R+ does not have 20% going to highways and instead this is eliminated and spent on new rail transit projects while the Metrolink share goes from 2% to 5% (so in essence rail projects go from 35% to 52%). Note it may not be possible to completely get rid of Highway so it might have to go to say 5% from 20%.
3. A new LRTP is adopted and any projects in the immediate list are considered to be funded by this.
New projects would include the following (granted this is not a wish list, but a rather realistic list that is somewhat balanced regionally and does not include a bunch of $5B subways).
1. Funding for completing a light rail line from Expo to Sylmar Metrolink. Note we already have some funding from Measure R so this may not have to need a crazy amount.
2. Burbank Airport Red Line Extension - connects to 2 Metrolink Lines although the Antelope Valley line may need a moving sidewalk or something like this to better connect to this station.
3. Crenshaw Line to Purple Line
4. Green Line to Metrolink Norwalk Station
5. Santa Ana ROW - there is only $240M right now, which means practically nothing can be built so this needs some more funding to become a useful line.
6. Gold Line to Claremont/LA County border
7. Green/Crenshaw Line further into South Bay/Torrance
8. Major upgrade of Metrolink San Bernardino Line to include double tracking and possible electrification.
9. Purple Line to Bundy - this would be a small extension, but by then I think people will see the VA as not being an optimal end station.
If there are any extra funds, then make the Sepulveda Line connection from Expo to Century. This would be expensive, and it would make the list seem very Westside centric, but I think people in the Valley and South Bay would be supportive, because they would be along the line and it would make it much more useful for them.
I know I am leaving off connecting Crenshaw to from the Purple Line to Hollywood/Highland. While I would like to see that happen, it will be very expensive so I just don't see that happening right now. I also think something else for the South Bay may have to be added. Maybe a connection all the way to the Blue Line.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jan 23, 2013 10:03:54 GMT -8
3. Crenshaw Line to Purple Line As long as they aren't stupid and treat this as phase 1 of a full project to Hollywood/Highland, as the junction point they choose is locked in for the second half. In isolation, just going up La Brea might be the best choice, but Fairfax/La Cienega is going to be more useful for the full line. Santa Monica might not like this, as having it stop short of Bundy sort of gives them a bargaining chip to get it extended all the way to the Promenade. Stations past Bundy aren't going to have the same cost/benefit ratio so it will be harder to get them built in isolation.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 23, 2013 15:56:47 GMT -8
I know I am leaving off connecting Crenshaw to from the Purple Line to Hollywood/Highland. While I would like to see that happen, it will be very expensive so I just don't see that happening right now. Well considering West Hollywood voted for Measure R and Measure J more than any other city in Los Angeles County, you will pardon if we disagree with leaving off our best chance to bring Metrorail here.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 24, 2013 2:17:59 GMT -8
I know I am leaving off connecting Crenshaw to from the Purple Line to Hollywood/Highland. While I would like to see that happen, it will be very expensive so I just don't see that happening right now. Well considering West Hollywood voted for Measure R and Measure J more than any other city in Los Angeles County, you will pardon if we disagree with leaving off our best chance to bring Metrorail here. I think that the Crenshaw line from Expo to Hollywood should be one of the highest priorities for making a complete rail network. A loosely connected bundle of spurs running off into the suburbs is a comparative waste of money. Without a good core network to connect to, those spurs aren't going to be worth much. Call the Expo-Purple line connection the "mid city connector" or something like that, and emphasize improved travel times for the San Fernando Valley, etc. for the Wilshire-Hollywood segment. I realize that part of the San Gabriel Valley is never going to be happy until the Gold line extends to Ontario, but we actually need to distribute our rail lines proportionally to where they will be used, not proportional to geographical area. (I actually support extending the Gold line to Ontario, but not at the expense of the Pink line and a Sepulveda line from LAX to the San Fernando Valley.)
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 24, 2013 10:58:23 GMT -8
I would add the Vermont Ave line from Wilshire/Vermont to the green line.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 24, 2013 16:59:24 GMT -8
I think that the Crenshaw line from Expo to Hollywood should be one of the highest priorities for making a complete rail network. I agree with you although I'm not sure that traffic studies would.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 24, 2013 17:02:13 GMT -8
I would add the Vermont Ave line from Wilshire/Vermont to the green line. This would be a very busy line and could also relieve pressure on the blue line by taking people that currently transfer west on the green line.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 24, 2013 17:48:04 GMT -8
I would add the Vermont Ave line from Wilshire/Vermont to the green line. This would be a very busy line and could also relieve pressure on the blue line by taking people that currently transfer west on the green line. For the record, I am in favor of connecting the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood, and as I have said throughout this forum, I like the Vermont Line to the Green Line a lot too (although my enthusiasm isn't quite as high given that the subway can't really be made to continue down here and it would have to be a new whole line resulting in a forced transfer). However, these projects are really expensive. Building a Crenshaw Line from Expo to Hollywood/Highland is going to be almost as expensive as the entire Westside Extension. The Vermont Line may be a little more practical, because there is a median south of Gage that can be utilized. Just don't think it is practical to include them all in a new Measure R. I wish it were, but reality says no. I still think a Sylmar to Century/Aviation Line is the best for the system, although that is really expensive. This would be a through Line from the South Bay to the end of the Valley unlike the Crenshaw Line which will require a transfer at Highland or the Vermont Line which will require a transfer at Wilshire. I do agree we need to build a system and not just lines that don't connect well as that is becoming our system's biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 28, 2013 9:33:32 GMT -8
Metro depends on West Hollywood and environs to provide a surplus of votes for transportation measures to offset other less-friendly parts of the county.
It will also depend on the higher than average sales tax revenue from those areas to help pay for those projects.
If the voters in this area start deciding they are no longer interested in seeing their own sales tax revenue used to fund rail projects in other parts of the county without any prospect of a Metrorail line of its own connecting it to the system, then there could be trouble assembling the supermajority necessary for passing any transit ballot measure.
This area's support for Measure R and Measure J is in based on the hope of eventually getting Metrorail too, not in merely extending the Gold Line out to Ontario.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jan 30, 2013 7:00:07 GMT -8
Totally agree that WEHollywood needs to have a connection to the overall system of rail.
|
|