|
Post by usmc1401 on May 25, 2021 17:04:30 GMT -8
At Vermont between 182nd street and 190th st two large lots with car operations exist. The first one is the site of the old Ascot car track that was closed about 30 years ago. Also this site could have been a stadium site for the Los Angeles Raiders. The next site south was a RTD bus garage and before that a RV manufacturing site.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 28, 2021 10:13:22 GMT -8
I think I'd strongly support the tail tracks option, not an operational inter-lining with the B/D lines.
And the reason is two fold: first by keeping the lines separate, Bechtals Sepulveda line solution for shorter trains, extremely high frequency, automated operations and superior more flexible station connection locations (like the Wilshire/Westwood station connection) would all be possible if the lines are kept separate.
And from a rider's perspective, a three or four car consist that has a 90 second frequency is FAR superior to a six car consist with a 720 second frequency that also interlines to go to hollywood.
The transfer penalty isn't a strong consideration if the frequency is high enough, AND ridership on all other parts of the line have a vastly superior experience.
So we shouldn't ruin the ride for 80% of riders so that 20% of riders at the north end (of whom,75% are probably transferring to the D line in all combination scenarios, and are not following the B line route) are preserved a one seat ride option to go to hollywood from time to time.
When the overwhelming number of transfers will be to the D line, we shouldn't prioritize interlining to the B line. Especially not if it means a multi year down time of B-line to downtown operations. we will NEVER recover the ridership from the valley to downtown if we cut service for three years to tie in the lines.
The second major reason the lines should not interline to B is that interlining has its own severe penalties that need to be accounted for in operations. Capacity constraints at any one point of either line affect the capacity of both lines at ALL points. In this case, the lack of ventilation in the long tunnel reach has already been mentioned and I am sure there are more capacity constraints. And interlined lines naturally have only half the potential maximum frequency of non-interlined lines.
In addition to the capacity and frequency penalties imposed by interlining to B, the operational management overhead on interlining planning and execution is a serious consideration. We need to see if metro has the staff operational management capacity to successfully manage the extremely complex regional connector interlining, and if it's a constant series of minor disasters, metro should either invest heavily in personnel that can manage the extreme complexity requirements for future interlining or they should avoid future interlining projects because they're unable to staff adequately to take on complex operational challenges.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jun 3, 2021 13:57:33 GMT -8
I've been leery of a burbank airport extension lately since they're planning to knock down current the terminal and build a new one closer to the other burbank airport metrolink station. I think if burbank airport gets served by metro, it should be by a crenshaw line extension in the distant future that goes from the hollywood bowl up olive, to the burbank metrolink station, and then along those tracks to the newer burbank airport station adjacent to what will be the new terminal. Extending the red line to the ventura metrolink line burbank airport station will still be far from the actual terminal in the not too distant future. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they rebuild a new second terminal in that area at some point, just set back from where the current one is since they're extending the tarmac. But a pricey red line extension to an area that won't even be terminal-adjacent soon feels like a bad idea to me. It always made more sense to me to move the terminal to the HSR ROW than to tunnel a bunch to get to the current terminal. Given that, the Red/B can connect to Metrolink etc. at Van Nuys, with stations at Lankershim/Victory, Sherman/Laurel Canyon, and Woodman and/or Coldwater.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 4, 2021 14:32:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jun 4, 2021 16:18:33 GMT -8
wow i didn't even know that was a study they were pursuing. that's good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 4, 2021 17:21:45 GMT -8
wow i didn't even know that was a study they were pursuing. that's good to hear. Yeah, I had forgotten to post it here when they awarded the contract around March. It’s supposed to take about a year. When they voted to add rail to the EIR, Janice Hahn also added an amendment to study going all the way to PCH. Since it wasn’t part of the initial study, the main project will be studied in an EIR, while this study of a southern extension is just the initial feasibility study.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 6, 2021 9:54:01 GMT -8
I missed this as well. Thanks for re-posting it here. I revisited this potential future LA train map and noticed that it showed a Vermont line going all the way to PCH by 2060 and thought that it was a bit of fantasy. Now i know that it's actually pretty reasonable. Credit: Adam Paul Susaneck@medium.com Link to full article: medium.com
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 8, 2021 4:12:03 GMT -8
wow i didn't even know that was a study they were pursuing. that's good to hear. Yeah, I had forgotten to post it here when they awarded the contract around March. It’s supposed to take about a year. When they voted to add rail to the EIR, Janice Hahn also added an amendment to study going all the way to PCH. Since it wasn’t part of the initial study, the main project will be studied in an EIR, while this study of a southern extension is just the initial feasibility study. My initial theory regarding that IF Vermont South was done as an extension of the Red Line that it would lead to there being two “lines” on Vermont • 1. North Hollywood to Union/Arts; 2. Vermont/Sunset to Vermont/120th • - in subsequent posts the general opinion on here was that it would bottle up the line and they’d likely just have one single red line from NH to 120th. Am I right in interpreting the tweet quoted to say that Metro would likely go the route I suggested? ALSO, on the last page it was said by bzcat that upon further review building a Vermont Red Line South extension was not as complicated as once believed. Is that still true? Because it says on the quoted tweet it could take up to 2 years to build at Vermont/Wilshire. And when they say it would interrupt the line during construction - do they mean the Red or the Purple or both? If it would interrupt the Purple then they should gamble and start the construction on just that station NOW. Instead of waiting for the Purple extension to be finished - get a ton of riders - only to lose them due to the inconvenience of construction. I really really really hope they build this line quick and they do it the right way. TO ME it’s the most underrated project in the whole system. As I’ve said before Vermont is one of the real keys to getting this system off the ground as world class.’they have to do this right and if it took way more money to speed up construction they need to do it and take money from other places.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 8, 2021 9:17:33 GMT -8
Yeah, I had forgotten to post it here when they awarded the contract around March. It’s supposed to take about a year. When they voted to add rail to the EIR, Janice Hahn also added an amendment to study going all the way to PCH. Since it wasn’t part of the initial study, the main project will be studied in an EIR, while this study of a southern extension is just the initial feasibility study. My initial theory regarding that IF Vermont South was done as an extension of the Red Line that it would lead to there being two “lines” on Vermont • 1. North Hollywood to Union/Arts; 2. Vermont/Sunset to Vermont/120th • - in subsequent posts the general opinion on here was that it would bottle up the line and they’d likely just have one single red line from NH to 120th. Am I right in interpreting the tweet quoted to say that Metro would likely go the route I suggested? ALSO, on the last page it was said by bzcat that upon further review building a Vermont Red Line South extension was not as complicated as once believed. Is that still true? Because it says on the quoted tweet it could take up to 2 years to build at Vermont/Wilshire. And when they say it would interrupt the line during construction - do they mean the Red or the Purple or both? If it would interrupt the Purple then they should gamble and start the construction on just that station NOW. Instead of waiting for the Purple extension to be finished - get a ton of riders - only to lose them due to the inconvenience of construction. I really really really hope they build this line quick and they do it the right way. TO ME it’s the most underrated project in the whole system. As I’ve said before Vermont is one of the real keys to getting this system off the ground as world class.’they have to do this right and if it took way more money to speed up construction they need to do it and take money from other places. There isn't anything to infer from the tweets except that they are starting the South extension feasibility study now, and it will take around a year (probably 1.5-2 years before it gets before the board), and they have not yet awarded the EIR contract for the main project yet, which means it will probably be 3-5 years before any rail decision gets before the board. Constructability and cost estimates would be refined in the EIR study. It likely would mean interruption of the Red Line. When you account for the time it takes to do the EIR, preliminary engineering, select the LPA, utility relocations, and put a contract out for bid, the very earliest I think a rail project could start construction is at the end of this decade. The bigger issue is that there is very little funding for this project, so they need to get that figured out. Even if there is federal funding, the federal government will require LA Metro to provide 40-60% of the project funding. And the board is not going to take funding away from other projects to fund this project--the law makes it so that the Metro board has a slight suburban bias--4 votes held by LA Mayor, 4 votes held by suburban cities, and 5 votes held by County Supervisors (3 of which represent mostly suburban regions).
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 9, 2021 14:06:42 GMT -8
The bigger issue is that there is very little funding for this project, so they need to get that figured out. Even if there is federal funding, the federal government will require LA Metro to provide 40-60% of the project funding.And the board is not going to take funding away from other projects to fund this project--the law makes it so that the Metro board has a slight suburban bias--4 votes held by LA Mayor, 4 votes held by suburban cities, and 5 votes held by County Supervisors (3 of which represent mostly suburban regions). On top of that Vermont Corridor as BRT will happen because that has money within Measure M to be done by 2028. Vermont Corridor as Rail will be a lot more difficult. With the Federal (New Starts) Funding scenario there will be other projects that will take priority due to order and Measure M cashflow such as; West Santa Ana Branch to pay for the subway to Downtown LA, Sepulveda Pass from Van Nuys to Expo. I just noticed here with the Vermont Rail options and learned from the Metro Project team on the Crenshaw North Extension, they are only making it a CEQA document instead of a CEQA and NEPA. If they make it a NEPA document as well then it would only have a limited shelf life due to the tie in with immediately requesting federal funding.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 10, 2021 3:25:02 GMT -8
The bigger issue is that there is very little funding for this project, so they need to get that figured out. Even if there is federal funding, the federal government will require LA Metro to provide 40-60% of the project funding.And the board is not going to take funding away from other projects to fund this project--the law makes it so that the Metro board has a slight suburban bias--4 votes held by LA Mayor, 4 votes held by suburban cities, and 5 votes held by County Supervisors (3 of which represent mostly suburban regions). On top of that Vermont Corridor as BRT will happen because that has money within Measure M to be done by 2028. Vermont Corridor as Rail will be a lot more difficult. With the Federal (New Starts) Funding scenario there will be other projects that will take priority due to order and Measure M cashflow such as; West Santa Ana Branch to pay for the subway to Downtown LA, Sepulveda Pass from Van Nuys to Expo. I just noticed here with the Vermont Rail options and learned from the Metro Project team on the Crenshaw North Extension, they are only making it a CEQA document instead of a CEQA and NEPA. If they make it a NEPA document as well then it would only have a limited shelf life due to the tie in with immediately requesting federal funding. This might be an unpopular take here but I think Vermont BRT is a waste and should not happen. Metro will pat itself on the back and do nothing. Vermont is a critical step in turning LA into a true rail transit using region. Major projects like these are the kind that we as a nation have been running away from.. I’d have to think Vermont would be a great canidate for federal funding considering the amount of riders it would attract
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 10, 2021 7:07:30 GMT -8
On top of that Vermont Corridor as BRT will happen because that has money within Measure M to be done by 2028. Vermont Corridor as Rail will be a lot more difficult. With the Federal (New Starts) Funding scenario there will be other projects that will take priority due to order and Measure M cashflow such as; West Santa Ana Branch to pay for the subway to Downtown LA, Sepulveda Pass from Van Nuys to Expo. I just noticed here with the Vermont Rail options and learned from the Metro Project team on the Crenshaw North Extension, they are only making it a CEQA document instead of a CEQA and NEPA. If they make it a NEPA document as well then it would only have a limited shelf life due to the tie in with immediately requesting federal funding. This might be an unpopular take here but I think Vermont BRT is a waste and should not happen. Metro will pat itself on the back and do nothing. Vermont is a critical step in turning LA into a true rail transit using region. Major projects like these are the kind that we as a nation have been running away from.. I’d have to think Vermont would be a great canidate for federal funding considering the amount of riders it would attract I disagree that Vermont BRT is not needed. Just look at the Wilshire BRT and the Bus Only Lanes. They have those dedicated lanes and currently building the Purple Line extension to Westwood. We can have both on this corridor. Because if you have the dedicated lanes with local buses that will provide an effective feeder to the subway and we don't need stops as close together thus making it even more competitive as a Federal New Starts Project for a Full Funding Grant Agreement.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 10, 2021 9:51:37 GMT -8
The busier, slower parts of Vermont are on the northern end of the project. It's mostly 3 lanes in each direction with no parking or two lanes in each direction with parking. Is the plan to have side-running BRT with no parking and keeping two lanes for cars?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 10, 2021 12:32:18 GMT -8
The bigger issue is that there is very little funding for this project, so they need to get that figured out. Even if there is federal funding, the federal government will require LA Metro to provide 40-60% of the project funding.And the board is not going to take funding away from other projects to fund this project--the law makes it so that the Metro board has a slight suburban bias--4 votes held by LA Mayor, 4 votes held by suburban cities, and 5 votes held by County Supervisors (3 of which represent mostly suburban regions). On top of that Vermont Corridor as BRT will happen because that has money within Measure M to be done by 2028. Vermont Corridor as Rail will be a lot more difficult. With the Federal (New Starts) Funding scenario there will be other projects that will take priority due to order and Measure M cashflow such as; West Santa Ana Branch to pay for the subway to Downtown LA, Sepulveda Pass from Van Nuys to Expo. I just noticed here with the Vermont Rail options and learned from the Metro Project team on the Crenshaw North Extension, they are only making it a CEQA document instead of a CEQA and NEPA. If they make it a NEPA document as well then it would only have a limited shelf life due to the tie in with immediately requesting federal funding. The contract includes an option to do a NEPA document and the staff request for the approved budget includes the cost of the NEPA document: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=4956616&GUID=5BCEB9EE-2644-4646-BEB6-89473B87C4AA&FullText=1I'm less concerned with sequencing of the project for New Starts funding. Under the current New Starts program, Metro has had 4 overlapping New Starts grants (3 Purple Line plus Regional Connector) and are confident that they could get awards for WSAB and Sepulveda even without any influx of funding from an infrastructure bill. The grant criteria is established by law and doesn't say that an agency is limited in the number of grants it can submit--as long as it scores well it should be competitive for a grant. Even then, the long timeline to finish the Vermont EIR (the contract hasn't even been awarded yet) should mean that WSAB and Sepulveda should have already received some or all of their New Starts awards (depending on how they are phasing it and how the P3 funding works out) by the time Metro would even be ready to make a grant application for the Vermont project. Finally, if an infrastructure bill passes to increase funding for transit expansion, Metro probably would be even more aggressive towards seeking funding for multiple projects.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 10, 2021 20:33:19 GMT -8
On top of that Vermont Corridor as BRT will happen because that has money within Measure M to be done by 2028. Vermont Corridor as Rail will be a lot more difficult. With the Federal (New Starts) Funding scenario there will be other projects that will take priority due to order and Measure M cashflow such as; West Santa Ana Branch to pay for the subway to Downtown LA, Sepulveda Pass from Van Nuys to Expo. I just noticed here with the Vermont Rail options and learned from the Metro Project team on the Crenshaw North Extension, they are only making it a CEQA document instead of a CEQA and NEPA. If they make it a NEPA document as well then it would only have a limited shelf life due to the tie in with immediately requesting federal funding. The contract includes an option to do a NEPA document and the staff request for the approved budget includes the cost of the NEPA document: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=4956616&GUID=5BCEB9EE-2644-4646-BEB6-89473B87C4AA&FullText=1I'm less concerned with sequencing of the project for New Starts funding. Under the current New Starts program, Metro has had 4 overlapping New Starts grants (3 Purple Line plus Regional Connector) and are confident that they could get awards for WSAB and Sepulveda even without any influx of funding from an infrastructure bill. The grant criteria is established by law and doesn't say that an agency is limited in the number of grants it can submit--as long as it scores well it should be competitive for a grant. Even then, the long timeline to finish the Vermont EIR (the contract hasn't even been awarded yet) should mean that WSAB and Sepulveda should have already received some or all of their New Starts awards (depending on how they are phasing it and how the P3 funding works out) by the time Metro would even be ready to make a grant application for the Vermont project. Finally, if an infrastructure bill passes to increase funding for transit expansion, Metro probably would be even more aggressive towards seeking funding for multiple projects. Sounds like they are doing the NEPA for the BRT portion for perhaps the FTA Small Starts or BRT related grant. I'm concerned because it goes to cash flow on how much sales tax $$$ we have coming in to deliver the projects. However I don't see Metro trying to do 3 large projects for FFGA given the funds they need to have to have up front to build the projects.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 10, 2021 22:17:45 GMT -8
The contract includes an option to do a NEPA document and the staff request for the approved budget includes the cost of the NEPA document: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=4956616&GUID=5BCEB9EE-2644-4646-BEB6-89473B87C4AA&FullText=1I'm less concerned with sequencing of the project for New Starts funding. Under the current New Starts program, Metro has had 4 overlapping New Starts grants (3 Purple Line plus Regional Connector) and are confident that they could get awards for WSAB and Sepulveda even without any influx of funding from an infrastructure bill. The grant criteria is established by law and doesn't say that an agency is limited in the number of grants it can submit--as long as it scores well it should be competitive for a grant. Even then, the long timeline to finish the Vermont EIR (the contract hasn't even been awarded yet) should mean that WSAB and Sepulveda should have already received some or all of their New Starts awards (depending on how they are phasing it and how the P3 funding works out) by the time Metro would even be ready to make a grant application for the Vermont project. Finally, if an infrastructure bill passes to increase funding for transit expansion, Metro probably would be even more aggressive towards seeking funding for multiple projects. Sounds like they are doing the NEPA for the BRT portion for perhaps the FTA Small Starts or BRT related grant. I'm concerned because it goes to cash flow on how much sales tax $$$ we have coming in to deliver the projects. However I don't see Metro trying to do 3 large projects for FFGA given the funds they need to have to have up front to build the projects. It could be the other way around: Metro staff said they hope to not do any EIR for the BRT, because SB-288 passed last year, exempting BRT projects from CEQA. Obviously any funding for a Vermont rail project isn't coming from sales taxes since Measure M doesn't put any money for it until the out years. But Metro is working with SCAG on EIFD studies for the corridor (and the Vermont EIR contract includes a contract option to study value capture), a standalone project would be a good P3 candidate, and Metro should have started its congestion pricing pilot by the time this EIR is ready for consideration. The WSAB environmental clearance contract was awarded in 2016, it was expected to take 4 years at the time, but it actually won't have the final EIR/EIS ready until 2022. metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2832704&GUID=346BF2BF-61CD-4648-9B81-4AD9CC10104A The Vermont environmental clearance contract hasn't even been awarded yet, and is also a "4 year contract" but I'd bet on it taking more than the 4 years: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=4956616&GUID=5BCEB9EE-2644-4646-BEB6-89473B87C4AAThere have been similarly long timelines for ESFV. I really don't think that WSAB would be an issue for the Vermont project by the time the environmental document is ready. Metro already is planning to do 3 large projects for FFGA with Purple, WSAB and Sepulveda. By the time Vermont is ready, Purple would just have been completed and WSAB and Sepulveda hopefully would be in the stage that Purple is in right now. The issue is finding local funding for this project. If the local funding options can be pursued and secured, I think Metro would go for it and apply for federal funding. But if we start from a mindset that it isn't worth pursuing until many years later to begin with, there wouldn't be any urgency or zeal towards pursuing local funding.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 11, 2021 6:51:17 GMT -8
I really don't think that WSAB would be an issue for the Vermont project by the time the environmental document is ready. Metro already is planning to do 3 large projects for FFGA with Purple, WSAB and Sepulveda. By the time Vermont is ready, Purple would just have been completed and WSAB and Sepulveda hopefully would be in the stage that Purple is in right now. The issue is finding local funding for this project. If the local funding options can be pursued and secured, I think Metro would go for it and apply for federal funding. But if we start from a mindset that it isn't worth pursuing until many years later to begin with, there wouldn't be any urgency or zeal towards pursuing local funding. Here's an honest question for everyone with respect to this Vermont Corridor project, When do you expect this project to start construction as a rail corridor? I am asking because our expectations will vary and so I want to understand where you all see this from a timing perspective. Reading SB 288 (Wiener) that helps with CEQA but the key word in your post is "hoping". Because it is not clear to Metro staff if they still need to do a NEPA study to apply for Federal funds for a Vermont BRT. In addition, SB 288 as law doesn't comes into effect until 2023 where that will help bridge gaps for the Zero Emission Electric buses (either battery charging or trolleybuses), more bike lane projects and surface light rail and BRT projects to reduce certification times and accelerate these projects if they are locally funded. That twitter poster Mark is right as I read SB 288 the CEQA exemption doesn't cover subway projects. The point I was making is that we have projects already in the queue that will need every available dollar even with P3s they are massive projects with needed contingencies. We need to be realistic to that and I am not against studying it, Metro has no choice but to study it, given the current overages of the current list of projects being studied and are part of the Four Pillars list that includes Sepulveda Pass, WSAB (with an upcoming growing cost due to I-105 corridor interface), the South Bay Green Line extension and Eastside Phase 2 to Whittier. They have to look under every proverbial couch cushion and piggybank to find the funds. However I am hearing strong hesitation from the business community to increased taxes and fees after COVID such as congestion pricing, parcel taxes, real estate document transfer fees (as was recently done in Culver City and Santa Monica), these are in the works and coming at the worse time. I believe EIFD and value capture can be a tool to help bridge a gap mostly to pay for the debt service needed to finance borrowing many, many years ahead of a Vermont Corridor Rail project with the route seemingly getting longer means we need a lot of $$$. However the majority of these EIFD and Value capture dollars will go towards Affordable Housing as part of Transit Oriented Communities.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 11, 2021 8:20:23 GMT -8
Oh man. Predicting the future is hard. I'm much better at predicting the past, but not exactly stellar at that without access to Wikipedia. That said, when I toss variables into a hat like: local, state, and national economies, public will/appetite, equity, competing projects, gentrification, tax revenue, population growth/loss, my 50/50 guess is 15 years. 25% odds for 10 years and 75% for 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 11, 2021 8:26:47 GMT -8
I think expecting a 2030 start to the contraction is somewhat reasonable. 8.5 years to get thru EIR and secure funding.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 11, 2021 8:50:41 GMT -8
I really don't think that WSAB would be an issue for the Vermont project by the time the environmental document is ready. Metro already is planning to do 3 large projects for FFGA with Purple, WSAB and Sepulveda. By the time Vermont is ready, Purple would just have been completed and WSAB and Sepulveda hopefully would be in the stage that Purple is in right now. The issue is finding local funding for this project. If the local funding options can be pursued and secured, I think Metro would go for it and apply for federal funding. But if we start from a mindset that it isn't worth pursuing until many years later to begin with, there wouldn't be any urgency or zeal towards pursuing local funding. Here's an honest question for everyone with respect to this Vermont Corridor project, When do you expect this project to start construction as a rail corridor? I am asking because our expectations will vary and so I want to understand where you all see this from a timing perspective. Reading SB 288 (Wiener) that helps with CEQA but the key word in your post is "hoping". Because it is not clear to Metro staff if they still need to do a NEPA study to apply for Federal funds for a Vermont BRT. In addition, SB 288 as law doesn't comes into effect until 2023 where that will help bridge gaps for the Zero Emission Electric buses (either battery charging or trolleybuses), more bike lane projects and surface light rail and BRT projects to reduce certification times and accelerate these projects if they are locally funded. That twitter poster Mark is right as I read SB 288 the CEQA exemption doesn't cover subway projects. The point I was making is that we have projects already in the queue that will need every available dollar even with P3s they are massive projects with needed contingencies. We need to be realistic to that and I am not against studying it, Metro has no choice but to study it, given the current overages of the current list of projects being studied and are part of the Four Pillars list that includes Sepulveda Pass, WSAB (with an upcoming growing cost due to I-105 corridor interface), the South Bay Green Line extension and Eastside Phase 2 to Whittier. They have to look under every proverbial couch cushion and piggybank to find the funds. However I am hearing strong hesitation from the business community to increased taxes and fees after COVID such as congestion pricing, parcel taxes, real estate document transfer fees (as was recently done in Culver City and Santa Monica), these are in the works and coming at the worse time. I believe EIFD and value capture can be a tool to help bridge a gap mostly to pay for the debt service needed to finance borrowing many, many years ahead of a Vermont Corridor Rail project with the route seemingly getting longer means we need a lot of $$$. However the majority of these EIFD and Value capture dollars will go towards Affordable Housing as part of Transit Oriented Communities. Given the timelines other projects are taking, I don't think anything will happen until 2030 at the earliest if it is rail. At that point we are supposedly past the target dates for WSAB and Sepulveda completion, but even if they don't meet their ambitious dates, at least WSAB should be well underway, especially if the at-grade portions are built at the pace of the Gold Line Foothill Extension (a similar project that involves building in a railroad ROW and relocation of freight tracks). SB-288's exemption for BRT actually expires in 2023 (though hopefully it would be extended). leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB288
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 11, 2021 9:32:27 GMT -8
Here's an honest question for everyone with respect to this Vermont Corridor project, When do you expect this project to start construction as a rail corridor? I am asking because our expectations will vary and so I want to understand where you all see this from a timing perspective. Reading SB 288 (Wiener) that helps with CEQA but the key word in your post is "hoping". Because it is not clear to Metro staff if they still need to do a NEPA study to apply for Federal funds for a Vermont BRT. In addition, SB 288 as law doesn't comes into effect until 2023 where that will help bridge gaps for the Zero Emission Electric buses (either battery charging or trolleybuses), more bike lane projects and surface light rail and BRT projects to reduce certification times and accelerate these projects if they are locally funded. That twitter poster Mark is right as I read SB 288 the CEQA exemption doesn't cover subway projects. The point I was making is that we have projects already in the queue that will need every available dollar even with P3s they are massive projects with needed contingencies. We need to be realistic to that and I am not against studying it, Metro has no choice but to study it, given the current overages of the current list of projects being studied and are part of the Four Pillars list that includes Sepulveda Pass, WSAB (with an upcoming growing cost due to I-105 corridor interface), the South Bay Green Line extension and Eastside Phase 2 to Whittier. They have to look under every proverbial couch cushion and piggybank to find the funds. However I am hearing strong hesitation from the business community to increased taxes and fees after COVID such as congestion pricing, parcel taxes, real estate document transfer fees (as was recently done in Culver City and Santa Monica), these are in the works and coming at the worse time. I believe EIFD and value capture can be a tool to help bridge a gap mostly to pay for the debt service needed to finance borrowing many, many years ahead of a Vermont Corridor Rail project with the route seemingly getting longer means we need a lot of $$$. However the majority of these EIFD and Value capture dollars will go towards Affordable Housing as part of Transit Oriented Communities. Given the timelines other projects are taking, I don't think anything will happen until 2030 at the earliest if it is rail. At that point we are supposedly past the target dates for WSAB and Sepulveda completion, but even if they don't meet their ambitious dates, at least WSAB should be well underway, especially if the at-grade portions are built at the pace of the Gold Line Foothill Extension (a similar project that involves building in a railroad ROW and relocation of freight tracks). SB-288's exemption for BRT actually expires in 2023 (though hopefully it would be extended). leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB288Good catch I didn't see repeal which makes Metro's hesitance even more important because I don't expect any agency to get a BRT done in 18 months if they have funding already in place. This will help more of the bike/vision zero like projects out there to start.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 11, 2021 11:27:19 GMT -8
This might be an unpopular take here but I think Vermont BRT is a waste and should not happen. Metro will pat itself on the back and do nothing. Vermont is a critical step in turning LA into a true rail transit using region. Major projects like these are the kind that we as a nation have been running away from.. I’d have to think Vermont would be a great canidate for federal funding considering the amount of riders it would attract My first three years in LA almost all of my travel began or ended with using the Vermont Rapid bus. I say do the Vermont BRT, because in those magical years of the consent decree when bus service was frequent and fast (and before metro began assaulting their bus riders with max volume TVs pummeling the same 4 adverts on a loop (2005 as I recall), riding the bus was a delight. And anything to make riding a bus better again would be welcome, and BRT on vermont NOW is far superior for riders NOW than a subway on vermont that only benefits riders forty years from now when it opens. But metro hates their buses, they hate their bus riders and metro enthusiastically pursues anti-bus rider strategies to maximize the cruelty they can inflict on their bus riders. so it's unlikely anything will actually happen to make riding the bus better in Los angeles.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 23, 2021 14:34:33 GMT -8
The Vermont corridor EIR contract was delayed again to the July 22, 2021 board meeting. Maybe they are retooling it in light of not needing a full EIR for BRT, or it is being affected by limited procurement resources (many Metro staffers took an early retirement option offered because of the pandemic).
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 29, 2021 9:45:22 GMT -8
Here’s the presentation and video on the Vermont Corridor South Bay Extension study:
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Jun 29, 2021 11:00:49 GMT -8
No one is in favor of a Vermont Subway more than me I think it’s one of the four pillar projects Metro needs to do. But is this extra 10 miles overkill? Doesn’t ridership drop dramatically south of the green line? I think you have a better shot of getting VERMONT RED LINE SOUTH done if you leave there 10 miles out. But if they get funding then more the merrier
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 29, 2021 11:12:44 GMT -8
No one is in favor of a Vermont Subway more than me I think it’s one of the four pillar projects Metro needs to do. But is this extra 10 miles overkill? Doesn’t ridership drop dramatically south of the green line? I think you have a better shot of getting VERMONT RED LINE SOUTH done if you leave there 10 miles out. But if they get funding then more the merrier Well, this study would tell us how much ridership different extension projects would get, which can give us an idea of whether or not it is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jun 30, 2021 20:01:42 GMT -8
I wonder how long it took the Los Angeles Railway to get from concept to first trip on the V line.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jul 1, 2021 8:25:58 GMT -8
Part of the V line started as Rosecrans RR or transit. In 1890 Redondo Railway purchased Rosecrans and extended the line to Redondo Beach as a 36" steam line. Name change to Los Angeles and Redondo. In 1902 changed to 42" electric line. Sold to LARY in great PE merger of 1911.
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Aug 21, 2021 14:09:55 GMT -8
Anyone else notice in that June presentation the indication of HRT being able to operate below and ABOVE ground? I don’t think they are speaking about HRT alignments in general, but are specifically referring to this project and how that particular modal technology could be implemented along this corridor because they mention average station spacing of 1.5 miles and a top speed of 70 mph.
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Aug 22, 2021 4:26:31 GMT -8
Anyone else notice in that June presentation the indication of HRT being able to operate below and ABOVE ground? I don’t think they are speaking about HRT alignments in general, but are specifically referring to this project and how that particular modal technology could be implemented along this corridor because they mention average station spacing of 1.5 miles and a top speed of 70 mph. I’m kind of confused what you’re asking I do know this is the most underrated mass transit project maybe in the US. This to me in combination with Sepulveda is what will turn LA into a high use city.
|
|