|
Post by erict on Oct 12, 2010 16:30:38 GMT -8
Light rail is not much of a downgrade, the Pink line will be better connected to the rest of the light rail system lines,which is larger in size anyway. So you have to transfer at Wilshire, it's not the end of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 16:32:59 GMT -8
Transfers reduce ridership. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 16:53:13 GMT -8
Comparison between HRT and LRT subway alternatives: HRT 1) 5 miles 2) 5 stations + plus connection structure (5 X 450 = 2,250 feet of platform) LRT 1) 9.6 miles 2) 9-10 stations (9-10 X 270 = 2,430-2,700 feet of platform*) *Also take into consideration the potential for 4-car platforms. LRT is cheaper?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 12, 2010 17:03:52 GMT -8
Maybe LRT isn't cheaper in total, but it could be considered better value for money. You'd fit in a few stations between Expo and Wilshire, and you increase network connectivity, with better connections south from West Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 12, 2010 17:11:31 GMT -8
Maybe LRT isn't cheaper in total, but it could be considered better value for money. You'd fit in a few stations between Expo and Wilshire, and you increase network connectivity, with better connections south from West Hollywood. Isn't LRT being (presumably) cheaper the whole point? Metro was studying BOTH the WeHo HRT and an LRT extension up La Brea to Hollywood, so I don't see the point of your argument.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 12, 2010 17:34:33 GMT -8
Whether WeHo gets rail, and whether it is heavy or light rail, is beside the point right now - there is not enough money for either one. And, plunking down gobs of more money is needed upfront to 'preserve' the ability for heavy rail with a connection structure.
Is that right?
Imo, preserving ability really is right thing to do - especially if money were no object. But, I also feel a long range vision would have a north-south line.
If I had my druthers (assuming that is a word), I would like to see Crenshaw extended north up La Brea or Fairfax and ending at Hollywood-Highland -perhaps positioned to continue into San Fernando Valley, plus, a new East-West line on Venice-La Cienega-Santa Monica to where-ever (maybe downton LA via Sunset, Dodger Stadium and Chinatown to Union Station).
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 12, 2010 20:09:29 GMT -8
^ That could change with 30/10. We might have enough money left over to build this (along with Phase V to Santa Monica, Crenshaw Phase 2, GLFE Phase III to Montclair, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 12, 2010 22:27:22 GMT -8
And I have to say, LRT definitely fills out more regional goals much better than HRT does. In either case, WeHo gets connected to the Metro Rail, but with LRT, it also becomes significantly easier for people in Hollywood go to due south, which could be tremendously difficult with the HRT spur. Also, adding the spur creates headway difficulties for the rest of the Purple line.
There likely won't be any delay to the eventual construction from this decision: both alternatives would be fairly far in the future, and both are unfunded, but still high-priority projects, and I'm sure at least some of the details gathered in the DEIR could be used in the next study.
And I personally don't think it's an insult at all. If anything, Metro probably shouldn't have gotten so far into studying HRT in the first place. I know I've been saying at the public comment meetings that it should be light rail. LRT is good enough for Pasadena, Culver City, Santa Monica, Long Beach, East LA, and is the only rail alternative on the table for the 405 line. Why shouldn't it be good enough for West Hollywood?
I think this is a very good decision on the part of Metro.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 13, 2010 8:46:49 GMT -8
The one advantage of this corridor being light rail is the possibility of extending the line in different directions.
Assume that light rail is built from Hollywood/Highland to San Vicente/Wilshire with stops at LaBrea/Santa Monica, Fairfax/SantaMonica, SanVicente/SantaMonica and Beverly Center.
For example, From San Vicente/Wilshire, it could go southeast on San Vicente to join the Crenshaw Line. It could south on La Cienega to Venice Blvd. and then on Venice toward the beach or further south on La Cienega to LAX. From Hollywood/Highland it could go northward to the Burbank media district and then to the Burbank Airport or future HSR station. From LaBrea/SantaMonica it could east to Sunset Junction and then down Sunset to downtown.
As an HRT line, there would be no other possibilities of expansion other than joining the Purple Line.
I'm choosing to see the glass half full if LRT is eventually agreed to (which of course is no guarantee).
If the alternative to HRT is LRT, and if the line connects to the Rose Line at Crenshaw/Expo, that would be trading a one seat ride to the beach for a one-seat ride to LAX. Not mincemeat, IMO.
However, whether this corridor is HRT, LRT or even streetcar, the first step is getting Metro to agree to keep the transit corridor alive for further study.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 13, 2010 8:56:40 GMT -8
If Metro were to build HRT to WeHo, how would trains be maintained without a connection to the existing HRT system?
Metro has chosen to focus on light rail development, for various reasons. All current and future projects are being planned as light rail, except for the Red and Purple Lines and their extensions.
So without the connection structure at Wilshire/Robertson, HRT to WeHo is dead. If a WeHo line gets built in the future, it will have to be LRT.
As you point out Dan, this isn't a bad thing. In fact, it opens up more routing possibilities because light rail has been built throughout the county and can run at-grade or aerial where it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 13, 2010 9:09:32 GMT -8
If this does become LRT, Here are three pics for this corridor assuming LRT between Hollywood/Highland and San Vicente/Wilshire. (The fact that Metro is building LaCienega on the eastern side of the corner, makes a transfer tunnel with San Vicente/Wilshire a real possibility.) Here is the core: Here is an extension to the Rose (Crenshaw) Line: Here is other possible LRT extensions from this core: Again, the first step for any HRT, LRT or even streetcar future is to keep this transit corridor alive for future consideration.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 13, 2010 13:42:46 GMT -8
If this does become LRT, Here are three pics for this corridor assuming LRT between Hollywood/Highland and San Vicente/Wilshire. (The fact that Metro is building LaCienega on the eastern side of the corner, makes a transfer tunnel with San Vicente/Wilshire a real possibility.) Here is the core: Here is an extension to the Rose (Crenshaw) Line: Here is other possible LRT extensions from this core: Again, the first step for any HRT, LRT or even streetcar future is to keep this transit corridor alive for future consideration. How many miles from Expo to HH going that route? It looks like it would be as long as the entire Purple Line extension to the VA (i.e. 9 miles)? That is going to be a many mulitple billion dollar project and very difficult to realize. I'd personally favor Fairfax, but even that will have to pencil out and I wonder when these things are priced out how it would compare against a shorter straighter route up La Brea. I just don't think I have ever seen in real life such a convoluted zig-zag route as this Rose Line would be from LAX up through San Vicente to HH.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 13, 2010 14:14:55 GMT -8
I'd probably go with two lines: - a Santa Monica Blvd Line (former "Silver Line" concept) from Century City to Vermont/Sunset (and beyond); and
- a Crenshaw Line extension up either La Brea and Fairfax.
For the record, the zig-zagging doesn't bother me if it hits lots of destinations. But as masonite points out, that is going to be one seriously expensive line due its length.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 13, 2010 16:04:53 GMT -8
I'd probably go with two lines: - a Santa Monica Blvd Line (former "Silver Line" concept) from Century City to Vermont/Sunset (and beyond); and
- a Crenshaw Line extension up either La Brea and Fairfax.
For the record, the zig-zagging doesn't bother me if it hits lots of destinations. But as masonite points out, that is going to be one seriously expensive line due its length. It seems a shame not to use the unused ROW in Beverly Hills for something. Between Fairfax and LaBrea, obviously Fairfax would have higher ridership. You'd have stops at the Grove/Farmer's Market, Santa Monica Blvd. and even something around Sunset/Gardner.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Oct 13, 2010 17:19:13 GMT -8
I have to say, I don't think La Brea would make anywhere near as good of a rail line as Fairfax or La Cienega/San Vicente. I also don't think the San Vicente option would be as expensive as it looks: let's not forget that there's an unused ROW there, so much of it could be at-grade
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 13, 2010 17:31:30 GMT -8
I have to say, I don't think La Brea would make anywhere near as good of a rail line as Fairfax or La Cienega/San Vicente. I also don't think the San Vicente option would be as expensive as it looks: let's not forget that there's an unused ROW there, so much of it could be at-grade I like Fairfax and then veer over to La Cienega to hit the Beverly Center/Cedars area and then up from there to Santa Monica Blvd and across to HH. It is going to be pretty tough to get the community behind using that ROW on San Vicente. I think I would be prepared for a really expensive figure if this is ever studied.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 13, 2010 17:53:19 GMT -8
I have to say, I don't think La Brea would make anywhere near as good of a rail line as Fairfax or La Cienega/San Vicente. I also don't think the San Vicente option would be as expensive as it looks: let's not forget that there's an unused ROW there, so much of it could be at-grade I like Fairfax and then veer over to La Cienega to hit the Beverly Center/Cedars area and then up from there to Santa Monica Blvd and across to HH. It is going to be pretty tough to get the community behind using that ROW on San Vicente. I think I would be prepared for a really expensive figure if this is ever studied. I like the Fairfax option too. I have it in my Google Map... maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.085649,-118.378372&spn=0.36623,0.727158&z=11
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 13, 2010 21:51:37 GMT -8
The routing of the Vermont Ave. line to Bob Hope/Burbank Airport reminds me of the VTA light rail line from San Jose to the Mountain View Caltrain station.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 14, 2010 5:17:39 GMT -8
My recollection of both Fairfax and La Brea is that more businesses are on La Brea and I believe those businesses tend to be open longer hours. Perhaps I will drive both this weekend.
Anyway, something to keep in mind, the Crenshaw line will already be interlining with the Green Line near LAX. Their schedules will obviously need coordination. If the Crenshaw line were to interline with an additional line, that would obviously mean yet another line to coordinate schedules... unless something fancy is done with the junctions or tunnels.
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on Oct 14, 2010 10:26:46 GMT -8
I have to say, I don't think La Brea would make anywhere near as good of a rail line as Fairfax or La Cienega/San Vicente. I also don't think the San Vicente option would be as expensive as it looks: let's not forget that there's an unused ROW there, so much of it could be at-grade Sac Vicente could be expensive if it involves relocating the large oil pipeline that runs beneath the street.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 14, 2010 11:19:19 GMT -8
I'd probably go with two lines: - a Santa Monica Blvd Line (former "Silver Line" concept) from Century City to Vermont/Sunset (and beyond); and
- a Crenshaw Line extension up either La Brea and Fairfax.
For the record, the zig-zagging doesn't bother me if it hits lots of destinations. But as masonite points out, that is going to be one seriously expensive line due its length. It seems a shame not to use the unused ROW in Beverly Hills for something. Remind me again - Where exactly is the unused ROW in Beverly Hills?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 14, 2010 11:37:32 GMT -8
I think the "unused right of way" refers to the ex-Pacific Electric route along Santa Monica Blvd. Rail service (for freight only) survived along this route into the 1970's. There were a few customers in West Hollywood and a bakery in Beverly Hills, as I recall. Diesel locomotives were used, but they had to be equipped with mufflers. PE-style air whistles were installed to avoid the use of common air horns when going through the former Western District.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 14, 2010 11:40:01 GMT -8
^ Well, there's actually two ROWs. One is the one that Tobias is talking about, along Burton and San Vincente. And the other is on Santa Monica Blvd, which is where the "Beverly Hills Freeway" was once planned. I have to say, I don't think La Brea would make anywhere near as good of a rail line as Fairfax or La Cienega/San Vicente. I also don't think the San Vicente option would be as expensive as it looks: let's not forget that there's an unused ROW there, so much of it could be at-grade LOL, the NIMBYs of Beverly Hills are fighting the Purple Line.....I can't imagine how nuts they'd go if we made this at-grade. My recollection of both Fairfax and La Brea is that more businesses are on La Brea and I believe those businesses tend to be open longer hours. Perhaps I will drive both this weekend. Anyway, something to keep in mind, the Crenshaw line will already be interlining with the Green Line near LAX. Their schedules will obviously need coordination. If the Crenshaw line were to interline with an additional line, that would obviously mean yet another line to coordinate schedules... unless something fancy is done with the junctions or tunnels. Well, I'm hoping the Green Line goes to Santa Monica after LAX.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 16, 2010 14:26:35 GMT -8
If Metro can secure a loan from the Feds like they just did with Crenshaw, we might have the funds to construct the connection structure. The same goes for the Regional Connector's 5th/Flower station.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 16, 2010 19:37:42 GMT -8
Well, it is a loan that must be repaid back. If Villiagrosia's comments are accurate- that the loan award was not expected - that would indicate that Metro will be privy to funding with no interest (this needs confirmation), vs. issuing bonds that DO have interest rates. Where Metro comes ahead is the difference between the interest that would be paid, vs. none at all??? What is that worth? Well, I am not an expert in this field... and perhaps someone on here is, but my back-of-the-envelope estimates say we're looking at: $542m at 0.4% annually = $2.2m. Over 20 years = $43m $542m at 0.6% annually = $3.3m. Over 20 years = $65m Of course, I have no knowledge of the current financing plan for Crenshaw, or any other Measure R project. I also have no knowledge about the bond market and what Metro assumes in its long range plan. I did do a quick search and saw that LA County's credit rating slipped from AA- to something and something that seemed appropriate for the above estimates. articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/10/business/fi-county-debt10I would have origionally assumed higher interests rates, such as 2% to 4% $542m at 2% annually = $11m. Over 20 years = $227m $542m at 4% annually = $22m. Over 20 years = $434m
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 16, 2010 19:44:34 GMT -8
If Metro can secure a loan from the Feds like they just did with Crenshaw, we might have the funds to construct the connection structure. The same goes for the Regional Connector's 5th/Flower station. Sorry, that is not likely at all. The Regional Connector needs a large New Starts match just to be completed. Also, both of them need 30/10 financing to be completed in a decade. The loans are not new money in the case of Crenshaw. It just allows the project to be completed a little earlier. This is good news, but not a windfall. On Oct. 28, the MTA Board will pick the LPA and will formally kill the connection structure and the Pink Line and the same for the 5th Street Flower station.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 17, 2010 9:37:32 GMT -8
If Metro can secure a loan from the Feds like they just did with Crenshaw, we might have the funds to construct the connection structure. The same goes for the Regional Connector's 5th/Flower station. Sorry, that is not likely at all. The Regional Connector needs a large New Starts match just to be completed. Also, both of them need 30/10 financing to be completed in a decade. The loans are not new money in the case of Crenshaw. It just allows the project to be completed a little earlier. This is good news, but not a windfall. On Oct. 28, the MTA Board will pick the LPA and will formally kill the connection structure and the Pink Line and the same for the 5th Street Flower station. Better yet, if they are New Starts grants (as opposed to loans that must be paid back), wouldn't we have our funding source? If Measure R allocates $4.2 billion toward the Westside Subway, and $1.4 billion is received from the Feds (per the DEIS/DEIR), where will the remaining $2.8 billion go?
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 17, 2010 10:47:28 GMT -8
I don't understand where this notion of an LRT subway being cheaper is coming from. There is no concrete evidence that suggests such a thing. It is crystal clear that Metro is all about cost savings, and with the HRT/LRT comparison I provided, wouldn't HRT (logically) be cheaper? There is a terrible misconception that LRT is inherently cheaper than HRT.
---
Tobias -- And as I said earlier, Metro is studying a northern Crenshaw extension up La Brea, which would provide a much more direct north-south route.
Dan -- Why wouldn't those extensions also be possible with HRT? There is enough density in East Hollywood to warrant HRT; Santa Monica and Sunset are too busy to have at-grade LRT. And this also sets up the possibility for an HRT extension farther east along the 10 or even the Alhambra Trench.
|
|
|
Post by Bart Reed on Oct 17, 2010 22:39:45 GMT -8
Sorry, that is not likely at all. The Regional Connector needs a large New Starts match just to be completed. Also, both of them need 30/10 financing to be completed in a decade. The loans are not new money in the case of Crenshaw. It just allows the project to be completed a little earlier. This is good news, but not a windfall. On Oct. 28, the MTA Board will pick the LPA and will formally kill the connection structure and the Pink Line and the same for the 5th Street Flower station. Better yet, if they are New Starts grants (as opposed to loans that must be paid back), wouldn't we have our funding source? If Measure R allocates $4.2 billion toward the Westside Subway, and $1.4 billion is received from the Feds (per the DEIS/DEIR), where will the remaining $2.8 billion go? The budget for the project is $4.2 billion (Western - Vet's Hospital) $2.8 billion is the local share $1.4 billion is the federal match and $4.8 billion is the invented additional cost from the LA Weekly. On the Crenshaw (Rose) Line, the budget for the project is $1.4 billion. The local share is $1.4 billion and there is a federal loan of $546 million that gets paid back at 3.5% which is a lot less than market rate bonds.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 18, 2010 0:11:27 GMT -8
Tobias -- And as I said earlier, Metro is studying a northern Crenshaw extension up La Brea, which would provide a much more direct north-south route. Metro is doing no such thing. As of now (October 2010), Metro is only studying Crenshaw up to Expo. The end result of this study will be the FEIR. No options above Expo are being studied at this time.
|
|