|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 22, 2008 9:41:22 GMT -8
First, that just intuitively doesn't make sense: "We should bring the project online 18-24 months sooner instead of waiting and getting a 50% match." Plus, the additional time would have allowed them to complete the environmental review process for the entire corridor and possibly submit the line as one project. But really there's no need to speculate. One phone call to the FTA will explain that the Eastside LRT being in the funding cycle was not the reason the application was held up for 3 years. Who's speculating? That was the response given to me when I made the phone calls back in January of 2006 and confirmed when one of those representatives came to moderate a Westside Transit Planning conference back in May of 2006. That's odd, that meant it would have been important to FTA as well, if speed and ridership were the prerequisites for receiving grant money. Minus getting the original guys who worked on the DC Metro who practically had their hands in the cookie jar for a short period of time and who no longer has that access,(Notice the issues they are having on getting their Metro line to Dulles) what you are asking for is virtually impossible since the requirements and process has changed in 20 years time. (Thanks Reagan Administration. Where's a middle finger icon when you need one, ;D) I just looked at my previous post and saw that the '94 Expo EIR showed with grade separations at every major intersection, depressed in residential areas, with a few crossing gates in industrial areas travel time was 37 minutes from Santa Monica to UNION STATION (not just 7th St. Metro). Unless you are refering to this chart, There was no specified travel time chart from Santa Monica to Union Station for LRT, anywhere in the study. The chart also didn't include the grade separations because the speed increase and travel time decrease were minimal. Then why does the Red Line in certain stretches between Vermont/Santa Monica and Vermont/Beverly, the Hollywood Blvd Stations and between 7th St and Westlake/MacArthur Park doesn't operate faster than 55 in it's fully grade separated tunnel, when they have to capablity of going 70-75 mph? Very true on the elevated depending on how it's built and where the inclines are located. However a trench could also have the same speed and operational restrictions to mitigate noise depending on how it's built. If it's a soil embackment it's minor because the soil deadens the noise. If it's concrete and the walls are close to the tracks then it's a trumpet because parallel walls when open to the sky open directs the noise upward directly onto the street. A mitigation for this which is the same for the elevated is a lot of dense landscaping and a 3' high soundwall next to the grade separation or tracks.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 22, 2008 10:27:12 GMT -8
Speaking of Darrell's deception and misrepresentation of the New Starts application process, shall we turn our attention to the Seattle University Link LRT project. Wouldn't you know it's a "modern light rail line" that is ... wait for it: IN A BORED TUNNEL! The feds are executing a $750 million dollar match for the $1.8 billion dollar 3.1 mile University Link, which primarily due to topography, crossing a river, really deep stations, etc. has a substantially greater per mile cost than a grade separated Expo Phase 1. It's over $500 million a mile, yet the feds are funding this MODERN LIGHT RAIL LINE that is in an extended tunnel. How can that be? Someone call the police! Seattle MUST be violating the Darrell Clarke law! Don't they know the feds aren't allowed to pay for modern light rail that's grade separated, let alone in a tunnel! AND BORED TUNNELS AT THAT! But wait...I'm not done yet! Here's the kicker: The 2015 ridership projections are nearly identical to the previous 2020 ridership projections for Phase 1 Expo at-grade: University Link 2015 projection: 47,500 ( North Link EIR Section 2.7 Projected Light Rail Ridership) Expo Phase 1 2020 projection (their old number): 43,700Now, University Link's forecast number is higher at 70K for it's forecast year of 2030 (Expo's forecast year is 2020 - 10 years less ironically), but that's primarily because they're calculating the additional trips from a separate extension from University to Northgate, which I suspect they were allowed to do in large part because the EIRs for that extension were done. Phase 1 can't YET do the same because the Phase 2 EIR is not yet done, nor is the Crenshaw LRT (which could operate as a spur line if Expo Phase 1 was grade separated). I hate to beat a dead horse, but again, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I state how our lack of system planning makes our projects less competitive for state and federal funding, Metro just doesn't understand how to navigate the New Starts process and has a bad rep with the FTA. Again, complete the Phase 2 and Crenshaw EIRs and Phase 1 alone we could likely assume greater numbers than this much more expensive (by 33%) 3.1 mile $1.8 billion University Link project that again is MODERN LIGHT RAIL IN A TUNNEL RECEIVING FEDERAL NEW STARTS FUNDING, considering: a) the substantial travel time savings of at least 11 minutes (at-grade Expo at best is 30 mins; grade separated Expo at worst is 19 mins) b) the additional Phase 1 trips because of the Phase 2 extension and Crenshaw project (both of which are in the constrained plan). All said, you're looking at an Expo system (with Phase 1, Phase 2 and Crenshaw) that would serve 200-250K riders per day, provide incredible travel time savings to BOTH transit dependent and choice riders, that is surrounded by good land use policy. So it is not only a stretch to suggest the feds wouldn't pay for a grade separated Expo, it is completely contrary to all facts and logic. Does everyone now understand why Darrell Clarke, has been reduced to saying "the feds have never paid for an extended trench" and "Expo was always supposed to primarily be at-grade"? Indeed, Darrell over the past few months in this forum your argument dwindled down from: -Light rail is primarily at-grade (then I and others pointed to systems that were mostly grade separated) -"Modern" light rail is primarily at-grade (then we pointed to modern systems that were mostly grade separated) -"Modern" light rail is not in an extended trench What will your new spin be on "comparative light rail" issue when responding to the masses of people who have qualms about Los Angeles accepting a third-world type rail line that imposes safety and adverse environmental impacts, serves far few riders and operates at a far slower speed than it can and needs to in order to alleviate our traffic nightmare? But then that's an insult to the 3rd world, as even many of their countries have banned this heavy rail at-grade stuff in their central cities.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 22, 2008 11:42:15 GMT -8
Who's speculating? That was the response given to me when I made the phone calls back in January of 2006 and confirmed when one of those representatives came to moderate a Westside Transit Planning conference back in May of 2006. From FTA Administrator James Simpon to Senator Feinstein dated February 2, 2007, in response to the question, "We would like specific information that was provided by the FTA to the LACMTA regarding project modeling and failure to meet the New Starts project justification criteria": FTA Response: In the Fall of 2004, FTA notified LACMTA that it appeared the mjority of the project's forecasted travel time savings resulted from: 1) increases in bus speeds and timed transfers from feeder buses, and 2) the use of an asserted travel time benefit (modal constant) for high-income transit riders that did not benefit other transit riders. As a result of these assumptions, FTA believed that a large proportion of the project's benefits did not reflect the benefits of the proposed project, but resulted from the impacts of an improved feeder bus network for the light rail system. FTA requested that LACMTA correct these issues so that the travel forecasts would better reflect the benefits of the proposed light rail extension, and not the impact of feeder bus service and modal constant that benefits high-income transit riders.
At that time, LACMTA believed it would be too time consuming to recalibrate the regional model and re-code the bus feeder network. LACMTA decided to pursue the project without Section 5309 New Strts funding for the project, to expedite project implementation. FTA has not received revised forecasts for the Exposition Corridor project. Because LACMTA is not seeking Section 5309 New Starts funds for construction, the calculation of transportation system user benefits is not required because a rating for project justification is not required.
Finally, FTA has identified similar issues with travel demand models used by numerous projects throughout the U.S., so the LACMTA models do not have any more weaknesses than models used nationally.
However, for those projects seeking New Starts funds, FTA requires the forecasts to be representative of only the benefits of the project. Well I don't know about others, but I've never said they were prerequisites for receiving federal New Starts funding throughout the country. Heck, I haven't even said it's a prerequisite for receiving funding locally. I have said, it becomes easier for Los Angeles to show the ridership and benefits necessary to compete for state and local funding by producing projects that are actually fast and address our travel demands and needs of both the transit dependent and choice riders. While I do think D.C. had an advantage given that it's the nations capital, I don't think that advantage of proximity should overshadow other tremendous aspects of the analysis and planning that went into the D.C. Metro system, nor should it be used to state it's not possible to navigate the current process. As explained in my two previous posts, a lot of these serious impediments are of Metro's creation and can be alleviated by actions of Metro. And the Dulles line had more to do with application timing and system maintenance issues, and to a lesser extent politics between local and state officials. Nonetheless, you sure we can't dig up the original guys who put together the D.C. Metro?I'm away from the document, which is why I stated, per my previous post. When I get home I'll look it up. I asked the similar question about Green Line being capped at 64 mph, when it has the capability of going faster in some stretches. The thing about sound mitigation is that it's not a one size fits all. The proximity of sensitive properties (which have different noise impact protections), speed of the vehicles, materials used, etc. are all factors. For example, the mitigation measures necessary to reduce noise 10 dbs for a property 150 feet from straight track are a bit different than those needed to reduce the noise 30 dbs for properties whose back yards are 10 feet from curved track, or reduce the noise 20 dbs for properties who front yards are 50 feet from straight track, etc.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 22, 2008 11:45:35 GMT -8
It's a nice day out everybody. Get outside and get a life!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 22, 2008 17:50:36 GMT -8
There is a staircase that again, as I said makes the Memorial Park station platform "roughly the same number of "steps" from the street to the platform as it would be if the station were built at-grade with the pedestrian queuing area and ADA mandated ramps": But there is no staircase for the at-grade stations. Signal disruption would just be 37-41 seconds, which I've already explained is a lie It's less? Remember when Damien didn't agree with Damien about how long a gated crossing took? I was told 18 months ago peak hour headways on full Expo would be every 4 mins. Submit a comment on that to the DEIS, which they'll need to respond to. "Venice Blvd is too narrow for LRT tracks without a lane drop" Demonstrably true from parcel maps. we're not discussing the Fix Expo position (which is limited from Trousdale to La Brea). We're discussing this project if it were totally grade separated. So instead of 4 miles of trench at $100 million additional per mile it's 6 miles of bored-tunnel subway at $200-300 million additional per mile? Absurd to think Expo could be built that way for "$1.05-1.15 billion". BTW, good job documenting that this isn't really about "environmental racism". Have you invited your attorney to read your posts here? the 30-32 min figure is accurate ... there were schedules produced by Metro Operations within the last year The station times of this purported schedule are ... ? the Eastside LRT is a primarily at-grade alignment Just like Expo from Trousdale to Gramercy? you like to bring up the Minnesota project without any context ... so why don't you tell us all about it and explain how it is applicable to Expo. Been there, done that. Hint: it's about tunneling not meeting cost-effectiveness criteria compared with at-grade. there are benefits in just telling the truth I do. You? But do us all a favor and point us to the transit project where the feds allowed the first phase of a project that was built with mostly local money to be considered the match. Our Congressional delegation is on it. If true, I stand corrected. Won't admit it without a qualifier? You read New Starts reports. Seattle University Link LRT project Big differences: * It's an extension of the original Seattle line that is about half at-grade in a boulevard median; * It has no existing right-of-way, unlike Expo; * Its projected 40,200 average weekday boardings is for a line only 3.1 miles long, less than half of Expo phase 1. The Regional Connector is a better analogy. at-grade Expo at best is 30 mins Repeating an unsupported falsehood. we pointed to modern systems that were mostly grade separated Buffalo, what an example, never repeated. It's a nice day out everybody. Get outside and get a life! No kidding!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 24, 2008 20:36:11 GMT -8
Neighbors for No Rail has just put up a blog site. As always they are trying to turn everything against Expo by using any trick they can think of or invent. As an example they are having this stupid poll of "Should Overland, Westwood and Sepulveda be Blocked by Light Rail 40-60% of the Time?"I suggest we all contribute to that idiotic poll by voting "Yes." Note: If you get an error and can't vote, right-click on View votes and Open in New Window. Then, you can succesully vote from there.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jun 24, 2008 21:38:40 GMT -8
As of 10:37PM 6/24/2008, the aye's have it... 12-11 (52%)
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 24, 2008 23:30:08 GMT -8
Haha, now it's 17-11. Stick it to the them. This is the kind of thinking you get when you have a city that is auto-centric. Only an idiot could think that slower speeds for cars is actually a good thing. So just call me a certified idiot.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 25, 2008 8:26:22 GMT -8
;D Maybe they got wind of your little scheme, because I went to the web-site and voted and it would not let me know what the results are.........Maybe they know that I'm a card caring TTC, and SO.CA.TA. member. Sincerely The Roadtrainer P.S. Did anybody get stuck on the Red Line last night because of the Broken Down Train at Hollywood and Highland?? I did!!
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 25, 2008 8:32:23 GMT -8
It might just be that you have javascript blocked on your browser; I can still see the results. As of this morning, it's now 22-12 for yes.
But we all know that if a poll was taken amongst all Westside residents, it would definitely be in favor of no (mostly because of the way it's worded but also because of a lack of interest in rail). How do you educate all of these people to teach them that slowing traffic is a good thing and that light rail is an amazing this for our city (especially at-grade light-rail).
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 25, 2008 14:53:15 GMT -8
;D Just remind them automobiles and suv's gas and diesel produce ton, and tons, of smog and light rail trains don't produce any smog. Present the picture that your a green friendly person when you take the train and not the car. After all west sidders want to be known as ecology loving green friendly enviormentalist loving people. Sincerely The roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 25, 2008 14:55:24 GMT -8
If you get an error and can't vote, right-click on View votes and Open in New Window. Then, you can succesfully vote from there.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 26, 2008 23:08:33 GMT -8
Damien Newton did a good recap of the LRTP and sales tax discussion at today's Metro Board meeting on StreetsBlog LA. In short, the Metro Board deferred approval of the new Long Range Transportation Plan, including whether to add the Foothill Gold Line to its funded plan, until after a proposed new L.A. County 1/2-cent sales tax for transportation may be on the ballot in November. This preserves the Expo Line phase 2 priority as the next rail project to be funded.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 27, 2008 8:07:53 GMT -8
Yeah, I saw the SM Daily News this morning, the headline was "MTA Moves Expo Line Along".
That headline is kind of misleading: all the MTA did was defer the decision of whether or not to allow the Foothill Gold Line to preempt Expo II.
Still, I will hand it to the Board for not allowing the Foothill supporters (dozens of whom were bussed in to the board meeting) to bully them or dictate policy.
The best part of all this is seeing all the YIMBYs fighting to get rail in their regions. The tide of public opinion certainly has changed in favor of rail transit.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 27, 2008 8:43:03 GMT -8
The Expo supporters also had busloads and wore bright, blue t-shirts, while the Gold Line supporters had meager, hard to see stickers.
I don't know if that had any effect, but I was impressed by the Expo visual presence.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Jun 27, 2008 10:41:02 GMT -8
If you ever wondered why we make slow progress on developing a mass transit system for LA Co. this is it: Divided we fall (or is that fail).
We should be demanding Expo AND East Co. Gold Line.
When the powers that be ask how we can afford it, respond how can we afford not to build these lines?
If, we can afford to send obscene amounts of money building freeways that people can barely afford to use and add to our polluted air, we can surely afford USD one billion apiece for decent light rail routes.
Adrian
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jun 27, 2008 13:41:11 GMT -8
Does the BRU actually read that the tax will cover transporatation? As in, bus, rail, freeway, road, etc...? Not just rail? They should be thanking them for adding more bus supervisors.
Yeah, why is it so hard to comprehend that you can have two projects simultaneously? Do the Expo and Gold people realize that is happening now with Phase I and Eastside? (given proper funding, of course)
btw, What is the real reason Eastside wasn't subway? I thought that was supposed to be the eastern part of the Red Line.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 27, 2008 14:23:34 GMT -8
Why is the East LA extension a Gold Line partial subway and not a Red Line full subway? Gloria Molina gave us an earful on that subject at the MTA board meeting yesterday. It's a real sore spot with her, and I think if one were to ask Supv. Molina what she thinks of Supv. Yaroslovsky, it would not be a ringing endorsement. We San Gabriel Valley residents also look upon Zev as the enemy. One gets the impression that he thinks everything east of downtown is still cow pastures and orange groves.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 27, 2008 14:36:40 GMT -8
Personally, I don't see a problem with the Gold Line being at grade in that area. It's not too long of a distance, calms down traffic in the area, and brings much needed transit to an area that is highly transit dependent. It will give the area a development boost that is highly pedestrianized and dense. Besides, maybe one day the Purple Line can be extended under Whittier to provide another option.
So, about that Expo Phase II, lol.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 27, 2008 16:22:07 GMT -8
Why is the East LA extension a Gold Line partial subway and not a Red Line full subway? Gloria Molina gave us an earful on that subject at the MTA board meeting yesterday. It's a real sore spot with her, and I think if one were to ask Supv. Molina what she thinks of Supv. Yaroslovsky, it would not be a ringing endorsement. We San Gabriel Valley residents also look upon Zev as the enemy. One gets the impression that he thinks everything east of downtown is still cow pastures and orange groves. When Zev brought to the county voters a ban on Prop A and Prop C funds for tunneling it effectively killed the Eastside and Mid-City subway extensions. The Mid-City extension was not going to go on Wilshire, but was instead going to go from the Wiltern Theater Station to the Southwest all the way down to Pico. One good outcome of this was taking that Mid-City diverted subway off the table. Engineering work and some property acquisition had already happened for the Eastside and Mid-City subway extensions and they had to be scrapped. As a westsider I was incensed at our County Sup. and voted against the ban, but few else did in LA County as the subway had a horrible reputation at the time as a big waste of money. Fast forward about 10 years and now Zev says he is for the subway now that traffic has grown impossible and other politicians have come out for it - namely Mayor Villaraigosa who brought along Henry Waxman and changed the political dynamic. Meanwhile the Gold Line was planned for the Eastside and Expo for the Westside as soon as the subway was not going to happen so that brings us to today. I do not blame Molina and Eastsiders for being bitter at Zev -- Talk about a politician with no guts and not standing up for anything and just going with the flow. However, with the DTC, I am not sure how much worse off they will be with the Gold Line extension vs. the Subway when it is all said and done, although ignoring the cost I am sure the subway would be more attractive for them. As for the SGV being anti Zev. Now that he is arguing for Expo to continue to stay in the plan ahead of the Gold Line, I can see why anyone in the SGV feels he might be the enemy. Personally, I fully support the SGV Gold Line extension assuming the sales tax passes. However, I am fully opposed to it jumping ahead of Expo and potentially other projects when it will only add 10-11k riders to the system for its 11.4 miles. Some of the proposed Purple Line extension individual stations have that many boardings just at their one location!!! Also, the SGV does have Metrolink, which the rest of the county has funded for close to 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 28, 2008 5:00:36 GMT -8
art, antonio and others have all made statements on this board expressing their issues with the Eastside Extension: the loss of parking lanes, cut sidewalks, elimination of travel lanes, accidents and deaths that will occur, slowness of the line, the distance from the major points of activities, all of that jazz has been stated in this forum by the people who know that community best. Maybe I just pay more attention to their comments.
And long ago, before I even knew there were large problems with Expo, when putting together Get LA Moving on this message board I linked to Molina's comments in '06 where she mentioned how unfair it was to begin talking about a western extension of the Wilshire line in the face of the Eastside being forced to accept light rail, and I stated that as one of many factors to have uniformity in our system when expanding.
The Get LA Moving map that began as a way of figuring out where at-grade could fit, to where grade separated made sense, became 70% subway (with the rest is at-grade grade separated), in admittedly a small but still significant part, because of her quote.
There's this organization that keeps talking about equity in funding, led by this transit advocate who keeps talking about how building projects based on political muscle creates problems for our system politically and legally. I guess every now and then people need to see that in play to understand the concepts/arguments being made.
Nonetheless, I was pleased to see Molina finally push this board to discuss this important issue. I was completely unsurprised that she highlighted the South LA community's requests in the process. (Funny, there are more overtures made to Fix Expo from the non-South LA board members than there are of those that are directly elected to represent South LA.)
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 28, 2008 11:51:36 GMT -8
accidents and deaths that will occur There will be more accidents with light rail than when there were only cars on that road?
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 9, 2008 11:34:12 GMT -8
It looks like Expo Phase 2 and the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica will both terminate at 4th st.
Will they share stations? Will the LR station be underground?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 9, 2008 11:52:30 GMT -8
It looks like Expo Phase 2 and the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica will both terminate at 4th st. Will they share stations? Will the LR station be underground? Per the current planning analysis there are two options. Both locations are at 4th/Colorado* One an elevated terminal at the Sears Auto Center Lot for Expo Line if they go with the Olympic Blvd option, aerial alignment west of 11th Street to mitigate for impacts to the 10 freeway on-off ramps. * The other is an at-grade terminal at either the Sears Auto Center Lot or between 2nd and 4th on Colorado for Expo Line if they proceded with an at-grade Colorado Avenue option.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 9, 2008 12:02:00 GMT -8
It looks like Expo Phase 2 and the Purple Line extension to Santa Monica will both terminate at 4th st. Will they share stations? Will the LR station be underground? Per the current planning analysis there are two options. Both locations are at 4th/Colorado* One an elevated terminal option for Expo Line if they go with the Olympic Blvd option, aerial alignment west of 11th Street. * The other is an at-grade station for Expo Line if they proceded with an at-grade Colorado Avenue option. I hope they go with the elevated option. That should save a considerable amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 9, 2008 15:55:01 GMT -8
On initital analysis the times are comperable. The only reason for the grade separation is to avoid the impacts to the 10 freeway on-off ramps.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 9, 2008 21:16:24 GMT -8
wrcousert, Expo and Red/Purple won't share stations. Expo will terminate in the vicinity of 4th and Coloarado, which is the southeast side of Santa Monica Place, wheras Red/Purple will terminate in the vicinity of 4th and Wilshire, which is the nortwest end of the Promenade.
City of Santa Monica strongly desires the Colorado Blvd median-running option, and I could tell you that there is 90+% chance that this will be the alternative that gets built. They are already making their city plans around this alternative. The idea is to create a transit zone around the median running light-rail.
Colorado median-running alternative should be cheaper since it won't require an elevated section at the west end. Since the median-running section is only one-mile-long, it shouldn't result in much time waste, especially with good signal sync. Also, even with the Olympic alternative, there is a sunstantial median-running section. It's also slightly longer than the Colorado alternative.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 10, 2008 11:32:03 GMT -8
If Santa monica wants expo at grade, won't some people claim environmental racism for Santa Monica at those dangerous quad-gate protected crossings?
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 10, 2008 14:00:56 GMT -8
Why is the East LA extension a Gold Line partial subway and not a Red Line full subway? Why can't East L.A. have both? Santa Monica will.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2008 15:53:51 GMT -8
Why is the East LA extension a Gold Line partial subway and not a Red Line full subway? Why can't East L.A. have both? Santa Monica will. The case for heavy-rail vs. light-rail is determined by the ridership per mile. The job density in the Wilshire corridor (as evident from the traffic on I-10 flowing from east to west in the morning and west to east in the evening) justifies the need for heavy-rail there.
|
|