|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 22, 2009 8:50:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 22, 2009 13:44:08 GMT -8
I guess they passed it. Well, it was nice knowing you guys. Hell on Earth is coming... sigh. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 22, 2009 14:07:09 GMT -8
From what I gather with my limited understanding of the horrifying meeting today, The Ridly-Scott amendment means that Crenshaw and Foothill are to get priority in Non-New Starts funding before the subway. So this means that the Subway MOS 1 and Regional Connector both advance to compete for Federal funding, but subway MOS2, 3, 4 , ? would have to wait behind the Crenshaw and Foothill extensions to get fed funding. Or maybe it means nothing at all, or something else totally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 22, 2009 21:44:19 GMT -8
From what I gather with my limited understanding of the horrifying meeting today, The Ridly-Scott amendment means that Crenshaw and Foothill are to get priority in Non-New Starts funding before the subway. So this means that the Subway MOS 1 and Regional Connector both advance to compete for Federal funding, but subway MOS2, 3, 4 , ? would have to wait behind the Crenshaw and Foothill extensions to get fed funding. Or maybe it means nothing at all, or something else totally. My understanding was that Phases 1, 2 and 3 still go forward to "New Starts" application. MOS4 and 5 will have to wait behind Crenshaw and Foothill. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 23, 2009 2:17:02 GMT -8
What about the Harbor Subdivision?  |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 23, 2009 5:18:55 GMT -8
The Harbor Subdivision is in the very early incipient phases of its existence, and the expansion of the Crenshaw project might very well make it somewhat superfluous. We'll see about that! On a somewhat related note, the No Build option might just end up being what's done with the Eastside LRT extension to Whittier or the SR-60--it's in the very early phases.
We finally have a series of defined, consensus-laden, thought-out projects that can form a true transit network--the Expo, Crenshaw, Downtown Connector, Foothill Gold, and Wilshire Subway.
What IS apparent is that--in the year 2009 going into the 2010--the entire county is going all out for all these defined projects. The Westside/Eastside screaming of Zev, Antonovich, and Molina took a backseat towards a "rising tide lifts all boats" approach. Yes, the screaming and blathering still will occur...but there will be an action plan.
(and maybe, just maybe, we'll conclude that Metrolink need not be the orphan child of the whole system and that the Eastside Gold Line extension to Whittier and/or the Harbor Subdivision ROW can just morph into a Metrolink upgrade of our existing tracks)
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 23, 2009 6:54:00 GMT -8
What about the Harbor Subdivision? Oh, that is good to hear. It is confusing wording. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 23, 2009 10:30:37 GMT -8
(and maybe, just maybe, we'll conclude that Metrolink need not be the orphan child of the whole system and that the Eastside Gold Line extension to Whittier and/or the Harbor Subdivision ROW can just morph into a Metrolink upgrade of our existing tracks) Ken, has it been determined if the Harbor Subdivision is wide enough to run both heavy and light rail. It would be great for the Crenshaw Line and Metrolink to be able to use it on the way to LAX. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 23, 2009 14:23:16 GMT -8
I've been informed in the past that it can do that...but I've not been to any recent meetings to confirm or not confirm that critical question, Dan. Sorry--anyone else know?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 23, 2009 20:05:12 GMT -8
(and maybe, just maybe, we'll conclude that Metrolink need not be the orphan child of the whole system and that the Eastside Gold Line extension to Whittier and/or the Harbor Subdivision ROW can just morph into a Metrolink upgrade of our existing tracks) Ken, has it been determined if the Harbor Subdivision is wide enough to run both heavy and light rail. It would be great for the Crenshaw Line and Metrolink to be able to use it on the way to LAX. [pedant]In the US heavy rail means grade separated, rapid transit (ie subway). Metrolink is commuter rail.[/pedant] The Harbor subdivision doesn't appear wide enough for even one mode in many areas. It looks about as wide as Expo for the most part, but some parts are wider. I never took a tape measure to it, but nowhere looks to be as wide as the blue line/union pacific row. I could be wrong, but I just don't see 4 tracks as possible. And metro - or at least I assume Metro since they own the row - just built a building (substation?) on the row on slauson next to the blue line. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 24, 2009 0:00:45 GMT -8
The Harbor Subdivision is wide enough for 3 tracks in most places, the narrowest part currently is on Slauson according to Metro staff I've spoken with, only two tracks can be put on (parts of?) Slauson.
I also highly doubt that there will ever be Metrolink trains on the Harbor Subdivision south of LAX, with the Green Line already there I feel like it wouldn't make too much sense to not extend the Green Line, especially with cities in that region planning for it with Redondo Beach and Torrance building new transit centers next to the ROW.
The northern part of the Harbor Subdivision is likely to be used by the Crenshaw Line and I think it's safe to say that it'll be LRT. The LRT infrastructure put in place by the Crenshaw Line would make it hard to make the case for a Metrolink type service until the CA HSR project was built since we currently already have the FlyAway bus service.
My earlier question was about if the LRTP had funding for the Harbor Subdivision still in there and I suppose I also mean the Green Line extension to Redondo Beach/Torrance. Is there a palce where I can see the official breakdown of funding on the Metro site now that it has been decided?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 24, 2009 8:21:35 GMT -8
I'm opposed to Metrolink on the harbor subdivision anyway. They need to build something that the people that live near the line could use. Metro is considering an express type train from downtown that wouldn't even stop in south la or inglewood. How could that be considered even remotely equitable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 24, 2009 8:26:07 GMT -8
Well, if there isn't room for both, then light-rail, compatible with the Crenshaw project and the Green Line obviously has to take precedence. If there had been room for both, it would have been good to connect Metrolink to LAX, but if not, light-rail it is.
|
|
