|
Post by Gokhan on May 22, 2009 11:22:18 GMT -8
These two pictures taken a few days ago are from the veteran railfan Alan K. Weeks, whose Air Line (predecessor of the Expo Line) pictures from the 40s and 50s are posted under a different thread here. USC trench station looking west and east on Exposition, respectively:
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 22, 2009 11:54:17 GMT -8
The presentation was nothing new, but I asked a lot of questions in side conversations at the tables. Here are some answers:
* On the Flower Street bridge, CIDH piles are already in for the north abutment, and are now being drilled at night on the south end. The center pier will have a large number of small-diameter but deep CIDH piles.
* DWP power line relocation at La Cienega should be done around the end of June. The main part remaining is the connections and cutover from the new underground ductbanks to the remaining poles.
* By late summer there should be a lot of bridge work visible. Falsework for the whole bridge goes in first, then it is poured in sections. There will be a lot of piles for the Culver City aerial station and overpasses. It will be a double-track bridge across National, then split into single-track bridges before crossing Washington and heading into the station.
* The Ballona Creek rail bridge will be a 200-foot span, 10-foot-deep of cast-in-place concrete, above the remaining historic plate girder rail bridge. Soil conditions require double columns at the west end.
* Upon completion of utility work and the trackway drains (at the sides of the right-of-way, using the green pipes), a fine sub-ballast 6-8" deep will be laid. The larger size regular ballast will be then laid at the same time as ties are installed.
* What a few of us noticed east of the east La Brea abutment - using large soil augers - was not to drill more holes but to mix cement with existing soil to make it stronger in carrying the tracks above a storm drain. More of that will be done west of La Brea.
* Discussions with LADOT continue. The June Expo Board meeting will have a status update - but not conclusions - about the remaining phase 2 grade crossings. LADOT wants the Expo Authority to run the Synchro model, apparently newer and more dynamic than Expo's analysis. Results are still dependent on assumptions input, like timing of adjacent signals.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 22, 2009 12:57:15 GMT -8
This could be first time you have been to one of these community meetings, Darrell. I don't remember seeing you at these meetings before. Great update! Let them run the "Synchro" model. My heart goes for at-grade at Overland and Westwood. I'm OK with bridges at Sepulveda, Barrington, and Centinela. The big question is "When will Phase 1 be finished?" Perhaps I've got an answer. The following is the official data for the percentage completed from Expo Construction Authority along with a linear-regression trendline. The linear trend is putting the completion in June 2011. But train testing is needed afterwards as well. I will update the chart as data becomes available from the construction authority every month, which will give a more and more accurate estimation of the date of completion every time. Note that the trend so far has been such that 2.5% completion is performed on the average every month. In other words we are about 25 months away from completion, given that there is 63% work left.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 22, 2009 17:14:48 GMT -8
According to the latest project-status presentation, completion is at 37% and delay is 44 weeks (10 months). It will still be many times cheaper at the end than if they had to build a full subway. Nowadays you are looking at $600 million per mile for a subway; so, it would have been $4.5 billion, five times the current cost of $0.9 billion. It would take longer too. I'm not saying Expo should have been subway. It should have taken a backseat to extending the current subway down Wilshire however. Also, the delays and cost overruns are disappointing and goes against the whole argument for this line, which was we could build it quickly and cheaply. It jumped from being 32 weeks behind to 44 from the April report to the May report, so who knows what the real answer is. It will blunt the disappointment somewhat if we can the Crenshaw segment opened next year, although there is doubt whether even that can happen, which is extremely disappointing. As for your $600M per mile of subway figure, that is completely false. If that was the case the Eastside Gold Line would cost nearly $2B instead of less than $1B as the 1.9 mile underground segment would cost $1.1B - $1.2B in and of itself. This was the point of my original post. Not even the Wilshire subway is being considered to cost that much. I have seen a $500M per mile figure thrown about. It may be higher 8-10 years from now, when we are actually building the majority of it. If it were to start construction today, I bet they could get it well under $500M per mile with the construction recession in labor and materials (although that hasn't seemed to help Expo much).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 22, 2009 18:39:24 GMT -8
^^ If Expo took the back seat to the Wilshire Subway, it would again never happen. Almost everyone agrees that the Expo Line is crucial in that it will not only bring rail to the Westside decades before the subway but it will also serve the southern part of the Westside as a light-rail line, reaching places like USC, Culver City, Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills, Home Junction, and the Pico/Olympic Corridor, which the subway will never reach.
There is no money for two subways on the Westside. Besides, why would anyone build a subway under an existing railroad right-of-way? Subways are usually built under streets or where there is no right-of-way, such as under mountains, houses, buildings, etc.
Subways are very expensive and they are getting more and more expensive. The Eastside Line is several years ahead of Expo, which has saved a lot for the cost of the subway. Most of the Eastside Line is a very low-cost embedded-track trolley line. It could be that only $100 million went for the at-grade sections and about $50 million for the elevated section. So, you are looking about $350 million or more per mile for the 1.8-mile-long underground section. In future dollars this is quickly approaching $500 million per mile, if not more soon.
The average progress on Phase 1, as seen in the chart above, has been consistently 2.5% per month, regardless of the claimed delays. Perhaps they tought they could go faster than 2.5% per month and that's what they mean by "delay." But it's clear from the chart that the project is headed for completion in Summer 2011 if the speed and progress in the last year and a half continues.
I will be happy if they could speed it up by three months and finish it in early March 2011 instead of in early June 2011 as the linear trendline predicts. Then, the line could be opened to Venice/Robertson in mid August 2011 after the train testing is carried out, just in time for the school year 2011 - 2012.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 22, 2009 21:37:32 GMT -8
Like I said there is no real evidence that Expo is being built much faster than the Wilshire subway would have had it been given the go ahead at the same time, especially the way the construction is going on Expo.
BTW, your figures for the tunnel portion of the Gold Line are debatable, but assume you are right in that it was $350M per mile, you'd have to assume a similar type increase for light rail costs especially considering Expo's overruns. Sure tunneling may cost $600M per mile 10 years from now, but if we put off light rail for 10 years I could quote similar cost increases for those projects if not more considering how badly Expo is over budget and the cost figures for Phase II and Crenshaw are simply enormous.
With Expo we are going to have Blue Line tie in problems with those shared stations. Also, the line as well as our other light rail lines are going to fall well short of their potential, because there is no DTC. Furthermore, once Expo is actually completed, people are going to be frustrated that they can't easily use it with Metrolink and that it doesn't really go to hardly any key destinations in Mid-City and West LA. Yet another rail line that falls short - just consider the anger and damage done to the local perception of rail because of the Green Line's lack of connection to LAX.
Anyway, my point is that we are about to repeat the mistake with Crenshaw instead of a Vermont Red Line extension. When I point out that Crenshaw has a huge cost for such little ridership, I am told the ridership is probably understated by a lot for some undefined reason that no one can really explain. Great, we are going to gamble on something like that doesn't exactly comfort me.
Measure R funds are already likely to be well short of the $40B people were counting on. The longer we wait to build critical projects in favor of mediocre ones the more we will be shooting ourselves in the foot and risk not completing a viable rail system.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 23, 2009 12:47:28 GMT -8
With Expo we are going to have Blue Line tie in problems with those shared stations. Also, the line as well as our other light rail lines are going to fall well short of their potential, because there is no DTC. Furthermore, once Expo is actually completed, people are going to be frustrated that they can't easily use it with Metrolink and that it doesn't really go to hardly any key destinations in Mid-City and West LA. Yet another rail line that falls short - just consider the anger and damage done to the local perception of rail because of the Green Line's lack of connection to LAX. I thought anywhere in Santa Monica is a major destination.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2009 15:54:46 GMT -8
I'm not saying Expo should have been subway. It should have taken a backseat to extending the current subway down Wilshire however. Why is that? There was a tunneling ban and there were no funds for a subway down Wilshire. Expo is not a duplicate service of a purple line extension. No reason not to build both of them. Light rail in LA is definitely expensive and has been for a while. Who told you that it would be cheap? It could have been, but we don't do it that way. Disappointing yes. Surprising, no. Stuff happens. But extremely disappointing would be having it not built at all. You're a little negative IMO. Wasn't the latest figure $2.2 billion for the first segment to La Cienega? That's 3.9 miles, so $600 million probably isn't too far off. I can't find a link for that figure, but that rings a bell.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 24, 2009 11:26:37 GMT -8
I'm not saying Expo should have been subway. It should have taken a backseat to extending the current subway down Wilshire however. Why is that? There was a tunneling ban and there were no funds for a subway down Wilshire. Expo is not a duplicate service of a purple line extension. No reason not to build both of them. Light rail in LA is definitely expensive and has been for a while. Who told you that it would be cheap? It could have been, but we don't do it that way. Disappointing yes. Surprising, no. Stuff happens. But extremely disappointing would be having it not built at all. You're a little negative IMO. Wasn't the latest figure $2.2 billion for the first segment to La Cienega? That's 3.9 miles, so $600 million probably isn't too far off. I can't find a link for that figure, but that rings a bell. Well, the main argument back in the 90s was that subway was too expensive and subject to construction delays and that we could build rail above ground cheaply and more quickly if we abandoned the subway and went to light rail, especially on the Expo corridor over the Wilshire subway. The voters bought it hook line and sinker. The fallacy of a lot of that argument is showing through now. One year delay and escalating costs for an at grade line is very disappointing in my book. The Red Line construction was difficult and some parts were over budget (although the last section was under budget), but I don't remember them ever falling 1 year behind the original construction schedule. For those people waiting for Phase II, none of this looks good. Anyway, I am not trying to be overly negative and my original point was to bring light to the fact that the partially tunneled Gold Line has gone much smoother than Expo, which goes against the thinking that at grade light rail is a much easier built. Eastside Gold has been under budget and at $900M it is not like they built a lot of excess cost factor in their budget like Expo Phase II has at $1.6B. This board is heavily pro light rail and that is fine, but that isn't going to preclude me from pointing out weaknesses in some of our past decisions as well as potential future ones. Overall, I think light rail has its place and there aren't many places we would want to put heavy rail, but there needs to be a discussion in some areas as to why we insist on light rail without examining the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 24, 2009 12:29:51 GMT -8
You make a lot of good points, masonite, but I think you're forgetting the bitter taste that subway construction put in voters' mouths when they built the Red Line in the 1990's--yes, I voted against Zev's initiative, but 2/3rd's of L.A. County did not.
Expo is a cheaper and adjacent (and necessary) corridor than Wilshire, and Crenshaw is a cheaper and adjacent (and necessary) corridor than Vermont. ANY light rail or subway line is gonna be EXPENSIVE when going through megadense regions--look how long it takes for any project (even the 405 freeway widening) when it comes to utility relocation, vs. how relatively quick it takes to build the actual structure.
Methinks that the DTC and Wilshire Subway projects will get very slow starts because of utility relocation, and it will bother people immense who find utility relocation boooooooring and don't understand why it slows things down 1-2 years for an otherwise "easy" project.
Similarly, one of the main reasons why we don't go under LAX to connect the Green Line to the airline terminals is (and I'm saying this as part of the Green Line Interagency Task Force) because of the horrifically-complicated issues awaiting anyone willing to delve through contaminated soil with lots of unknown and huge utility complexes (much of which isn't entirely certain after all these decades).
Despite being one of the most financially conservative members of this discussion board, I suggest that with a state and federal budget the addition of $1 billion here or there is NOT a lot of money for an infrastructure project that will last 100 years or more.
The spigot was turned OFF to major transportation projects during the Bush administration, while tens of billions of dollars were thrown all kinds of places...other places. Is New York or L.A. really so teeny that spending another $2-3 billion a year each would be that big a deal for what we would get in return?
Now comes the economic meltdown and a Sacramento year of reckoning that will also slow things down, and reduce what we're going to get from Proposition R (at least, thank Heaven, we've got that).
This economic meltdown won't last forever, but we need to forge forward with the Expo, Foothill Gold Line, Green Line, Wilshire Subway and DTC projects in any way we can over the next 1-2 years. Things go in cycles, and if we don't lose our heads we'll come out of this OK.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 24, 2009 12:39:52 GMT -8
Well, the main argument back in the 90s was that subway was too expensive and subject to construction delays and that we could build rail above ground cheaply and more quickly if we abandoned the subway and went to light rail, especially on the Expo corridor over the Wilshire subway. The voters bought it hook line and sinker. The fallacy of a lot of that argument is showing through now. One year delay and escalating costs for an at grade line is very disappointing in my book. The Red Line construction was difficult and some parts were over budget (although the last section was under budget), but I don't remember them ever falling 1 year behind the original construction schedule. For those people waiting for Phase II, none of this looks good. Anyway, I am not trying to be overly negative and my original point was to bring light to the fact that the partially tunneled Gold Line has gone much smoother than Expo, which goes against the thinking that at grade light rail is a much easier built. Eastside Gold has been under budget and at $900M it is not like they built a lot of excess cost factor in their budget like Expo Phase II has at $1.6B. It was a little more complicated than that in the 1990s. First, of course, was diversion of the Wilshire subway off of Wilshire west of Western Ave. (that would have gone only to Fairfax) following the Ross Dress for Less methane gas explosion. Then MTA essentially ran out of money in early 1998 and suspended the Pasadena Blue Line LRT and Eastside Red Line subway. MTA board members went to Curitiba and thought they had a cheap alternative: "It's like a subway train on rubber tires," Mayor Richard Riordan said. Zev Yaroslavsky's November 1998 Prop. A initiative only formalized what had already occurred. Pasadena fought back by creating a separate authority to build their line as light rail. New studies in 1998-2001 looked at what to do instead of the planned Red Line extensions on the Eastside, Westside (to Pico-San Vicente), and in the Valley (North Holllywood to Van Nuys under the Chandler right-of-way). Eastside and Expo supporters got those lines approved as light rail, while BRT prevailed in the Valley. Expo will still be completed years earlier to Santa Monica than a subway ever would have been. The subway will ultimately complement it, forming a grid of lines that is more useful than any single line along Wilshire would have been. Wilshire covers those destinations, while Expo covers USC-Exposition Park, Crenshaw, Culver City, West L.A., and Santa Monica. Eastside is 6 miles long with a 1.6-mile tunnel and bridge over the 101 freeway. Expo phase 1 is longer at 7.60 miles of new track (omitting existing Blue Line on Flower). Its underpass is shorter at about 1/4 mile, but it has significant bridges over the 110 freeway, La Brea, La Cienega, Ballona Creek, and National-Washington. Expo phase 1's budget was raised for (1) construction cost increases due to inflation and (2) moving the aerial Culver City station from phase 2 into phase 1. Its delays are primarily due to (1) DWP moving power lines, (2) the late approval of the aerial Culver City station, and (3) CPUC delay at Farmdale (including the time impacts of distracting Expo executives from overseeing construction). Expo phase 2 is estimated at $932,423,000 in 2008 dollars in the Draft EIR. Considering it is a mile shorter (6.55 miles) than phase 1 and has no underground and fewer bridges, one would expect it to be less expensive, although it adds the maintenance facility. Yes, Expo has turned out to not be a bare-bones at-grade light rail line in either cost or design, but still much less expensive than subway.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 24, 2009 14:12:11 GMT -8
Thanks for the nice historical review, Darrell.
BRT is usually a misstep and certainly a huge misstep for the San Fernando Valley. In Istanbul they built BRT in the freeway median aimed at meeting the ridership demand of 35,000 passengers an hour in single direction. They gave it a fancy name -- Metrobüs -- and sold it as the train with rubber wheels. As the saying goes there, "Even if you put a golden saddle on a donkey, it is still a donkey" and people are now realizing that a bus is always a bus and there was probably some corruption in getting this project built as BRT instead of LRT. There is a simple difference between BRT and LRT: LRVs can be linked together to form a train but buses can't. That's where the BRT fails becoming a serious transit alternative.
I think they overestimated how fast they could build the Expo Line. It looks like three years is about how long it takes to build LRT, not two as they thought. With the current pace of 2.5% a month, the line will be finished sometime in 2011, hopefully opening before August 2011. Also note that the more time consuming parts are usually the trench and bridges. Being in a major city also involves a lot of utility relocation.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 24, 2009 19:02:58 GMT -8
There's another issue that Darrell and Gokhan are well aware of and have mentioned in the past...which is that the full Expo Line to Santa Monica is really a single entity, and that the two phases are just ways to have allowed the line to be built in part while the rest was figured out.
Phase 2 will be built by 2013-14 because its work is being expedited through the design-build process. I'm rather unhappy that the first phase is opening in 2011, but the transition to Phase 2 is likely to happen much quicker at this point.
Just as the subway process was more complicated than we thought it would be, we shouldn't be too upset (a little upset, but not too upset) when the light rail process is more complicated than we thought.
Even the Orange Line BRT, with all of its problems, is a remarkably-successful transit line and it showed even the doubters that it was Exhibit A in whether Valley (and, by extension, Westside) transit would be used.
It really depends on whether we all choose to look at the glass half-full or half-empty, although our criticisms should still be forthcoming when they're indicated.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 24, 2009 22:05:20 GMT -8
Good points Darrell, Ken and others.
In retrospect, it is good that the subway was delayed, because the detour to Pico was less than ideal to say the least. I wonder how much Hollywood Blvd. sinking had to do with the negative perception of the subway in the 90's. Also, we hadn't seen the long term benefits of the subway at that point and people couldn't see into the future. Now that the Wilshire District, Downtown, and Hollywood have seen a resurgence of which some can be attributed to the Red Line, this is a different story.
I am still hoping we can get Expo open to Crenshaw in 2010, but it may not be possible. Overall, I do see Expo as a solid line that will have pretty good ridership, although I wouldn't have designed our system the way it has been. I do like others here to take a step back once in a while and take an overall look at our planning decisions.
Lets hope Eastside Gold can open in July. It should be a good addition to our system and it has been too many years since we have had that. Does anyone know the real differences in route between this line and the proposed Red Line extension here back in the 90s. I don't know the area well enough to evaluate the ridership of the two routes, but without knowing much it appears to me that this is one area where light rail actually made more sense than Heavy Rail (assuming DTC comes through relatively soon).
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 24, 2009 22:49:13 GMT -8
Does anyone know the real differences in route between this line and the proposed Red Line extension here back in the 90s. I'd made a map for my own reference a few months ago. Screencap below; Interactive Google Map available here. Enjoy! it appears to me that this is one area where light rail actually made more sense than Heavy Rail (assuming DTC comes through relatively soon). As far as I can tell from the maps, it's clear that both Little Tokyo and East LA College benefited from the LRT alignment. On the other hand, Whittier Blvd. would have been much better served by the HRT alignment. The section between the LA River and Indiana, however, appears to be roughly equally well-served either way.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 24, 2009 22:57:13 GMT -8
In retrospect, it is good that the subway was delayed, because the detour to Pico was less than ideal to say the least. I wonder how much Hollywood Blvd. sinking had to do with the negative perception of the subway in the 90's. Also, we hadn't seen the long term benefits of the subway at that point and people couldn't see into the future. The Red Line was already getting bad press, such as cost overruns and tunnel walls thinner than spec, but the Hollywood sinkhole was probably its low point. I tell people that its press changed after it opened to the Valley and the story became 'not enough parking in North Hollywood', a problem of success. Sure, here's what would have been the Eastside Red Line route. Note that the first phase only went to 1st & Lorena, so the LRT line got twice as far. The first phase was rather similar to the LRT as built, only omitting the kink south to 4th & Santa Fe and putting the Soto station on 1st rather than Cesar Chavez (formerly Brooklyn). The second phase would have been along Whittier rather than 3rd to Atlantic, a bigger difference.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 25, 2009 10:13:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 25, 2009 12:36:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 25, 2009 14:42:27 GMT -8
I remember the whole Red line construction fiasco, it was very sad. It directly impacted my partner's business - which happened to be near the sink hole. Metro, thankfully, did learn from this total disaster. We did finally get our subway (partially at least) and now we have moved well beyond this. I think Metro is still paying off the debt of the Red line construction(?). I hope they show every new CEO these videos so they will see what not to do ever again.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 25, 2009 14:55:36 GMT -8
Those Red Line videos are hard to watch. It was by all means a fiasco but I don't think the woman conducting these interviews was being totally fair with the Metro people.
It's also tough hearing stories about how Metro was "destroying communities" when areas like Hollywood, North Hollywood, etc. now owe so much to the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 25, 2009 22:02:11 GMT -8
I remember the whole Red line construction fiasco, it was very sad. It directly impacted my partner's business - which happened to be near the sink hole. Metro, thankfully, did learn from this total disaster. We did finally get our subway (partially at least) and now we have moved well beyond this. I think Metro is still paying off the debt of the Red line construction(?). I hope they show every new CEO these videos so they will see what not to do ever again. I remember this segment on 60 Minutes. The post script for this is interesting in that Tom Hayden has largely been disgraced as a politician last losing a local city council race and he was dead wrong about Runyon Canyon and any further major problems with construction of the subway as the last segment to North Hollywood came under budget and with no major construction problems. I attribute these problems to a poor job at the MTA rather than anything inherently wrong with subway construction as has been proven in the years since then. After all, we don't stop building schools because LAUSD has had problems building schools in the past. The MTA continues to be hurt by the Green Line and the fact that it doesn't go to LAX. This needs to be addressed as it will always be a battle cry against the MTA. The earthquake argument has been rebuked as well. No one says they won't drive on freeways that have bridges over them that consistently fall in major quakes when subways have virtually no damage (San Francisco, Tokyo, Mexico City are other examples in addition to LA). I don't know much about civil engineering, but I know a tunnel is more stable than a bridge. I wish everyone else would realize this instead of spreading misinformation. Also, I agree with the comment on Hollywood. It was essentially an open sewer 15-20 years ago before the subway with virtually nothing going for it. The Red Line really helped change the lookout for the entire area there. Before it, no one would invest a dime in Hollywood. Same goes for North Hollywood and the Wilshire District for the most part as well.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 26, 2009 5:06:43 GMT -8
To some degree, Hollywood got revitalized by the Red Line, but it was also the political leadership of Jackie Goldberg (a politician with whom I've frankly had some vigorous disagreements in the past) that really put some powerful efforts into restoring and renewing that once-crudhole.
On another level, and perhaps on the Eastside thread, I can't help but wonder (after seeing the above map of the former and current Eastside rail lines) if the Eastside is best served by a LRT to serve the 60 freeway corridor to the 605 as well as a Red Line Subway extension to the southeast adjacent to the I-5 freeway corridor. I really DON'T, and will not any time soon, favor a LRT to the City of Whittier that has poor ridership, is slow, and has few major pedestrian destinations.
$1 billion for an Eastside LRT to the 605 (or even beyond to Diamond Bar) along the 60 freeway would have lots of pedestrian destinations--I drive the freeway frequently, and it has some density to match the 210 freeway that would benefit from the Foothill Gold Line.
Another $1 billion for an Eastside HRT to provide an alternative for the megadensity of southeast L.A. would also benefit the region. I just don't see a lot of huge ridership between the current Eastside LRT terminus and Whittier that couldn't be better helped by enhanced Amtrak/Metrolink (and future CAHSR) service.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 26, 2009 14:38:36 GMT -8
Then MTA essentially ran out of money in early 1998 and suspended the Pasadena Blue Line LRT and Eastside Red Line subway. [...] Pasadena fought back by creating a separate authority to build their line as light rail. New studies in 1998-2001 looked at what to do instead of the planned Red Line extensions on the Eastside, Westside (to Pico-San Vicente), and in the Valley (North Holllywood to Van Nuys under the Chandler right-of-way). Darrell has terribly understated exactly what occurred, and by his version you would be lead to believe light rail was the only feasible option on the table. He's terribly inaccurate. Three points: FIRST, involved in that late '90s discussion was what to do with the North Hollywood segment of the Red Line. Metro agreed to continue construction. The point: Metro didn't suspend all heavy rail construction. SECOND, in those considerations for the other corridors the question was not "What do we build INSTEAD of heavy rail," it was "How can we alter our current plans on the corridors." For example, Metro considered a shorter HEAVY RAIL extension on the eastside that if pursued would already be operating TODAY. Metro considered a Wilshire heavy rail elevated extension down Wilshire - which if pursued would be operating TODAY. Metro considered a Wilshire subway extension that was shorter than the original planned segment - which if pursued would be operating TODAY. Those new studies also looked at BRT on some of the corridors. The point: Metro had options other than light rail (shortened HRT, elevated HRT, and BRT among them) in their reports (and even more left on the planning table) that still would have allowed them to continue expand the fixed guideway network. THIRD, and this is my favorite point, in the case of Expo those studies DRASTICALLY underestimated the actual cost of the light rail alternative. How drastic - how about by darn near TWO BILLION!The plans said Expo from Downtown to Santa Monica was going to be...get this: $550 million! In MTA's defense almost every light rail vs. brt vs. heavy rail study terribly underestimates light rail's true cost (both construction and long-term/lifecycle). It is as much a pillar of the light rail lobbying game as the Sky Hook was to Kareem Abdul-Jabaar's game. But being off by nearly TWO BILLION DOLLARS?! The feds eventually called MTA out on this and held up their New Starts application for one year, solely because they knew they were cooking the financial books to try and bait the FTA into an agreement. MTA eventually pulled out of the New Starts process after several changes were demanded by FTA and MTA refused to consider them. Now MTA and the defenders of the line bemoan FTA, in attempt to get people to divert their attention from Federal Transit Administration's criticism of Expo's deficiencies. Specifically, what would the changes have done: primarily they would have further exposed the deficiencies in the current primarily at-grade plan on the corridor. The point: The financial numbers were skewed to favor light rail on Expo (as frequently occurs). If the true cost of Expo were known early on, the project either would not have been built or it would have been built much differently. Now regarding the "subway ban," folk ignore that: a) the ban only applied to local sales tax A & C. Guess how much of Expo's 862 million budget is from A & C? LESS THAN 3%!$25 million out of an $862 million budget. b) the ban does not apply to elevated, which at the time (late '90s/early '00) was considerably cheaper than it is today. That's another unsubstantiated F4E talking point. They don't have to prove it, just as they don't have to prove their constantly reiterated statement that "light rail will improve traffic." Its a flawed and inaccurate argument that expect us all to assume the debate is at-grade LRT or nothing at all, when in reality, as pointed out above, that's not the choice and has NEVER been the choice. Furthermore, the grid/short-term cost argument will always favor BRT. (i.e. is it not reasonable to suggest that for the cost of Expo alone we could have BRT down Venice, Pico, Jefferson and King?). The long-term cost/benefit argument will always favor HRT (or grade separated LRT). Where does that leave at-grade light rail. Well no where. Simply, there is no argument for at-grade rail in LA that isn't an argument against at-grade rail in L.A. And there is no argument for light rail in LA that isn't an argument for grade separated rail in L.A. No amount of pictures or unsubstantiated talking points will change that fact, which is why at-grade advocates are so defensive, when they are critically challenged. See what I mean about understating the real cost of light rail to get the projects approved. Darrell doesn't want to publicly state the costs are currently 1.4 billion (and growing), because he's afraid folk might take a real look at this project and ask truly uncomfortable questions like: Instead of spending 1.5-2 billion dollars to worsen traffic on the Westside, how about we we extend the subway to Century City? Such questions force the public to focus a bit more intensely on the true intent and purpose of these lines, and therefore, perhaps better than any other manner, exposes how the promotion of at-grade light rail (at least in LA) is built completely on contradictory arguments, faulty logic and smoke-and-mirrors. That's why MTA needs groups to "provide for them the grassroots political cover," as a Friends 4 Expo Steering Committee member once proudly said.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 26, 2009 15:08:58 GMT -8
FIRST, involved in that late '90s discussion was what to do with the North Hollywood segment of the Red Line. Metro agreed to continue construction. The point: Metro didn't suspend all heavy rail construction. It's important to note that the North Hollywood segment was exempted from the sales tax ban. At the time, 64% of the construction of that segment had already been completed, so it made sense to finish it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2009 15:25:29 GMT -8
The plans said Expo from Downtown to Santa Monica was going to be...get this: $550 million! In MTA's defense almost every light rail vs. brt vs. heavy rail study terribly underestimates light rail's true cost (both construction and long-term/lifecycle). It is as much a pillar of the light rail lobbying game as the Sky Hook was to Kareem Abdul-Jabaar's game. Are you aware, Damien, that costs go up over time, due to a little thing called 'inflation'? And therefore any delay between DEIR and end of construction will result in increased costs? I advise you to do a search on "time value of money" for a refresher course. You're throwing around cost figures from different points in time, as if they can be compared without considering inflation. Costs have risen because time has passed. The cost of light rail in 1998 is not the same as the cost of light rail in 2009. Even my non-Harvard educated parents could explain that concept to you. In particular, the price of steel went through the roof over the last decade. It's a little detail that you seem to be disinterested in bringing up. All the more reason to STOP DELAYING these projects and get them built NOW, before costs skyrocket even more. And all the more reason to NOT DIVERT FROM THE ROW (as you want to do), which would add $250 million to the overall cost.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 26, 2009 16:10:20 GMT -8
The MTA ridership statistics are indicating that more and more people are riding rail, and less and less people are riding the buses as time goes. In fact the Orange BRT ridership keeps dropping. Once people realize that BRT is slow and overcrowded, they stop using it. This is not to say that we don't need buses. Buses are crucial for many people. We just need to build more rail lines. In other parts of the world, heavy rail refers to commuter trains or freight rail, hence to literally weight of the trains. What is known as heavy rail here is known as rapid transit elsewhere. In that sense our Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines are somewhat rapid transit, since they are pretty fast (55 MPH) and they use crossing gates for signal preemption and have decent capacity. So, you are getting more bang for your buck without resorting to dungeons underground. Light-rail is more pleasant to ride than subways in general.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 26, 2009 16:31:36 GMT -8
I love your unbiased reporting.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 26, 2009 16:37:33 GMT -8
Light-rail is more pleasant to ride than subways in general. I don't know about that...I actually like subways. Pleasant is in the eye of the beholder. The problem I have is with people who say "subway or nothing". This is like my daughter saying she's going to hold her breath until I buy her a pony. People like this lose all their credibility, very quickly. If money grew on trees, I'd say let's lay out a tight grid of subways throughout the entire region. But here in reality-land, money is scarce. Therefore, the 'fantasy grid' is not an option. Only a fool continues to pursue such a fantasy in the face of shrinking budgets. Thus, we have to make choices. LRT might be built along some corridors, with HRT subways along only our most dense corridors. We as a society are forced either to work for greater project funding, or to decide the most effective way to spend the limited funds available.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 26, 2009 16:46:11 GMT -8
Here is a 100% geographically accurate map with every detail worked out: And here is the corresponding route diagram that shows the grade separations, stations, and connections:
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 26, 2009 18:35:22 GMT -8
I drove along the right-of-way today and I was very impressed that for the first time since this project began I personally noticed lots of people working on the project. There were crews block after block, mostly sub-contractors working on Expo particularly from the Fig trench to Crenshaw.
Based on bodies on the ground I think that the eleven month gap is going to shrink pretty quick.
Finally,
|
|