|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 4, 2010 14:21:10 GMT -8
If you don't know what 30/10 is, the article below summarizes it well. Basically, it's a way to borrow the 30 years of anticipated sales tax revenues from the feds in advance, in order to build the Wilshire Subway and other projects in 10 years instead of 30. Here is the latest news. Feds Announce Support for Subway to Sea & 30/10 ProjectThe chances of a stronger public transit system in Los Angeles took a big step today when U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced federal support for plans to bring a subway down Wilshire Boulevard and of the region's 30/10 plan, which would build 12 transit projects in 10 years. “Secretary LaHood understands the opportunity to make the 30/10 vision a reality here and around the country," said Senator Barbara Boxer, who heads up the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "The Secretary is also working with me on finding every opportunity under current law so we can accelerate 30/10 now." Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's 30/10 program would take 30 years-worth of Measure R sales tax funding and build 12 transit projects in 10 years -- that's instead of the 30 years under the current plan -- with the help of a loan from the federal government that would be paid back by Metro. "DOT’s decision to expedite consideration of the Subway to the Sea is a great step forward," Boxer continued," and will help ensure that as we work to accelerate funding, DOT will work to have this project ready.” The support doesn't necessarily translate to guaranteed funding -- this is a pledge to find ways to make 30/10, a type of loan process not tried out before, happen. "I can assure you that the U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to working with you to explore this promising approach in the next transportation reauthorization bill," wrote LaHood in a letter to Boxer. He said 30/10 could be a model for funding transportation projects across the country. Today's announcement also means the Federal Transit Agency "has agreed to accelerate consideration of the Red Line Westside Extension - also known as 'Subway to the Sea' - by admitting the entire 9.3-mile project into its preliminary engineering process, and by conducting the environmental review of all segments of the project simultaneously instead of doing it in multiple phases," according to Metro.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 4, 2010 15:48:52 GMT -8
This is from BusinessWeek: U.S. to Speed Review of Los Angeles Subway ExtensionJune 04, 2010, 7:18 PM EDT By Alan Ohnsman June 4 (Bloomberg) -- Los Angeles’s pursuit of an expanded subway system will get accelerated review by the Transportation Department as the most congested U.S. city seeks to improve mass-transit options. A proposed 9.3-mile “subway to the sea” joining downtown Los Angeles to the West Side is in preliminary engineering at the Federal Transit Authority, Senator Barbara Boxer said in a statement today. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also backs Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s “30/10” project to finish 30 years of transit construction in a decade. “It’s a really important development that the subway is being reviewed in its whole rather than in phases,” Arthur T. Leahy, chief executive officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said in an interview. Federal officials “have signaled they want to start working with us on specific mechanical structures.” Los Angeles ranked as the most congested U.S. city based on the INRIX National Traffic Scorecard last year. It has had the longest average travel time in Texas A&M University’s Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility report every year since 1985. Los Angeles county voters approved a half-cent sales-tax increase in 2008 that the mayor said will help generate about $40 billion over three decades for transit projects. “Los Angeles has proposed a comprehensive, long-range transportation plan and the sustainable funding stream to accomplish it,” LaHood said in a letter to Boxer. The projects will create jobs and bring “cleaner air, reduced congestion, lower construction costs and improvements in the quality of life, much sooner than would otherwise be possible,” he said. Along with the subway extension, upgrades planned by the county transit agency include an expansion of light-rail lines and a direct rail link to Los Angeles International Airport.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 4, 2010 16:04:31 GMT -8
There is both good and bad news with this. On the good, it appears a formal proposal will finally be made in Congress as part of the transportation reauthorization bill. Prior to this, no mechanism had been discussed with any substance.
The bad, the reauthorization bill will not reach the President's desk until late 2011 at earliest. And, probably will not be effective until 2012. If that means 10 years begins then... Then we're looking at 2022 before these projects would each have hypothetical deadlines for open dates. Granted, some would open sooner, like Crenshaw or Regional Connector.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 4, 2010 17:43:49 GMT -8
^ Dude that's still great news!!
This could be a very exciting time with so many projects under construction simultaneously! It was already going to be relatively busy with Expo II, Crenshaw, gold line SGV, downtown connector, and the purple line under construction over the next 10 years. We could have a very decent system in just 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 4, 2010 20:29:39 GMT -8
Well, yeah. Tho, to me, 30/10 would mean 2020.
The task is not complete tho.... afterall, 30/10 is still a proposal or initiative until the Feds say 'yes.'
A side effect of the plan to roll the initiative into the transportation re-authorization will be that other states' senators and representatives using the benifit to California to leverage something for their states. I have no idea how extreme things may get and some things may lack merit.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 6, 2010 1:24:04 GMT -8
A side effect of the plan to roll the initiative into the transportation re-authorization will be that other states' senators and representatives using the benifit to California to leverage something for their states. Hopefully, all cities and states will be able to apply for federal loans to speed up funded transit projects. Our plan proposes using local funds (from Measure) R, but spending them now via a federal loan, rather than waiting for the taxes to come in over the next 30 years. This saves money on construction inflation, and gets things done now. If Congress approves an "infrastructure bank" or billions in loans specifically for transit, local areas will have a big incentive to fund their own projects. Right now, the political problem is that any new tax only results in projects years in the future, when current politicians can no longer benefit. If mayors or governors in other areas can get a big boost by passing a sales tax or property tax to fund transit construction, perhaps they will push to make it happen. I hope we don't have to wait until 2011 or 2012 for this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 6, 2010 14:32:38 GMT -8
There is both good and bad news with this. On the good, it appears a formal proposal will finally be made in Congress as part of the transportation reauthorization bill. Prior to this, no mechanism had been discussed with any substance. The bad, the reauthorization bill will not reach the President's desk until late 2011 at earliest. And, probably will not be effective until 2012. If that means 10 years begins then... Then we're looking at 2022 before these projects would each have hypothetical deadlines for open dates. Granted, some would open sooner, like Crenshaw or Regional Connector. Good point, but considering that there are MANY questions about the Westwood terminus (I still believe we're having a big fat problem in store if we stop it at the VA) and its potential to connect to a future northern extension to the Valley, it's just as well that the Crenshaw Corridor and Downtown Connector, which have fewer associated problems, are done first.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 6, 2010 15:19:19 GMT -8
What many questions? Measure R funds the extension to Westwood and no further. From there, the line can go west OR north, but not both. And, it seems much much better to go west. A split line is problematic - having line capacity problems with anything connected to it.
But, a strictly north-south line could have a transfer at either VA or UCLA stations and the latter seems better.... And there is no pressing need to pick one of those now, is there?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 6, 2010 17:46:32 GMT -8
From there, the line can go west OR north, but not both. And, it seems much much better to go west. A split line is problematic - having line capacity problems with anything connected to it. Yeah, just because the Expo Line will go to Santa Monica doesn't mean that the subway-to-the-sea shouldn't become reality. That thinking isn't smart. The area along the Purple Line route is VERY dense and transit-oriented. Building a downtown-focused system shouldn't be the goal, because this is a regional effort, and while downtown is very important, that doesn't mean that most lines should end or go through there. Plus, having a theoritical single-seat subway ride from Santa Monica to Whittier at 70 Mph as opposed to using the Gold and Expo Lines via the Regional Connector at 55 Mph (30 Mph in at-grade street median sections) just seems WAY to good an opportunity to pass up. A transfer at the UCLA station, or more specifically, Wilshire/Sepulveda, makes a lot of sense. And I doubt having to tranfer from the 405 corridor to the Purple Line is gonna affect ridership that much given how rough the commute can be on the freeway. Besides, look at the 7th Metro station.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 6, 2010 18:03:41 GMT -8
Yeah, just because the Expo Line will go to Santa Monica doesn't mean that the subway-to-the-sea shouldn't become reality. That thinking isn't smart. The area along the Purple Line route is VERY dense and transit-oriented. Building a downtown-focused system shouldn't be the goal, because this is a regional effort, and while downtown is very important, that doesn't mean that most lines should end or go through there. Agreed. This region is extremely large, and, downtown will not be the center of the region forever. As we know today, the Westside has a lot of jobs. And, many job-centers in the region are popping up that have strong centers comparable to other cities that have rail. In other words, a system built off downtown does not serve the region. As a matter of fact, I am watching the NBA finals and the broadcast just broke to commercial break... with, get this, the Westwood Wilshire and Century City skyscrappers in the foreground and downtown LA in the background (quite impressive too). A transfer at the UCLA station, or more specifically, Wilshire/Sepulveda, makes a lot of sense. And I doubt having to tranfer from the 405 corridor to the Purple Line is gonna affect ridership that much given how rough the commute can be on the freeway. Besides, look at the 7th Metro station. Agreed here too. Tho, the Westside Subway Extension has the UCLA station one block east of Sepulveda, between Veterans and Midvale. The VA Station is west of the I-405.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 6, 2010 22:28:30 GMT -8
It would be hard to add a transfer station at Westwood for a Sepulvada line after the fact. Much easier to build the station box right on the first try. I would vote for a cross-platform transfer station instead of a 90 degree angle, two-level station, if at all possible, but the geometry of the two lines would support the latter configuration. As our Vermont Subway discussion suggested, adding a transfer to an existing subway station is expensive and difficult.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 7, 2010 5:35:13 GMT -8
It would be hard to add a transfer station at Westwood for a Sepulvada line after the fact. Much easier to build the station box right on the first try. I would vote for a cross-platform transfer station instead of a 90 degree angle, two-level station, if at all possible, but the geometry of the two lines would support the latter configuration. As our Vermont Subway discussion suggested, adding a transfer to an existing subway station is expensive and difficult. I would agree that a cross platform transfer would be ideal - it is in probably all circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jun 7, 2010 7:50:35 GMT -8
The problem with the off-street station location at Westwood, in lot 36, between Gayley is that if it's not constructed in a forward looking way, ie. with enough room between the station and the street to later build either the cross-platform transfer or the 2nd level, then adding the future renovations could be very, very difficult. A 2-level station build right at Wilshire and Westwood, while yes, there would be more interference from construction, would potentially make it far easier to add a Westwood line later. It would also eliminate the need for a flying junction, and provide better access to the east side of Westwood.
Also, just to reiterate a related point, a 405/Westwood line should be LRT, as opposed to HRT, and should pretty much be treated as an extension of the Green line. It could have a transfer station at Expo/Westwood, probably subway but possibly elevated, and then should meet the Green line LAX extension. Trains would continue to Century/Aviation, then off to Norwalk. Meanwhile, the current South Bay portion of the Green line would be absorbed by the Crenshaw line.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 7, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -8
Also, just to reiterate a related point, a 405/Westwood line should be LRT, as opposed to HRT, and should pretty much be treated as an extension of the Green line. It could have a transfer station at Expo/Westwood, probably subway but possibly elevated, and then should meet the Green line LAX extension. Trains would continue to Century/Aviation, then off to Norwalk. Meanwhile, the current South Bay portion of the Green line would be absorbed by the Crenshaw line. I completely agree. The 405/ Westwood line should not be an extension of the Purple Line, but a LRT connecting LAX and the Westside with the Valley. I really wish the western terminus of MOS-3 was still Bundy, but it's not, so there you have it.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 7, 2010 18:44:40 GMT -8
Elsewhere in this forum is discussion concerning a Lincoln Avenue study and the mode possibly being LRV. Right? Perhaps that would be off the Green Line airport extension? But, there is definately a difference between Lincoln Avenue and Sepulveda in Westwood and... I have doubts that both could be done.
Gee, I am sounding like a pessimist every day.
Anyway, if I got to choose one or the other, I would like to first see rider projections and estimated capital costs. In their absense, I suppose I look more fondly at something up Lincoln all the way to Santa Monica.
By the way, anyone know what or where the longest light-rail tunnel in the United States might be... without a station? If one ran from Westwood area to the San Fernando Valley, I suspect that might be a record. If such records were kept.
----
Now that this thread is officially not the Red/Purple Line, I suggest it be moved somewhere else.. perhaps the part where it veers to not being LRV?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 7, 2010 21:26:28 GMT -8
Elsewhere in this forum is discussion concerning a Lincoln Avenue study and the mode possibly being LRV. Right? Perhaps that would be off the Green Line airport extension? Yes. This is the Green Line Santa Monica Extension, and it is indeed planned to head North from LAX on Lincoln Blvd to SM. And I believe Tom LaBonge is pushing for it. It's also on the MTA's LRTP most recent map: farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3357514809_45ff61df99_b.jpgWhy? Funds? I would think that with 30/10, it would be even more likely to happen, especially once the economy recovers and revenues skyrocket. Not sure. But If the 405 corridor has a station at the bottom of the Getty Center People Mover parking lot, and then heads to the SFV, the tunnel length would be split by almost 1/3.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 7, 2010 22:28:16 GMT -8
^ Wow, that is cool. I like maps like that. What is also shows is that the I-405 transit is a 'busway.' So, it seems with the Lincoln Ave corridor on a map as light-rail and with an advocate, 'Tom LaBonge', and the I-405 is either a busway or a 'corridor' (depending on the map), it seems Lincoln is more than head and shoulders ahead as a light-rail line. Villaraigosa's 30/10 map: www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/01/how-feasible-is-antonio-villaraigosas-3010-gambit-for-los-angeles-transit/Lincoln or Westwood: Why only one should occur: Well, where can trains run from? It basically adds too many trains onto a limited set of tracks. Getty Center Station: I've seen someone else here mention this too, but why? Why is a station needed there, whether it is a BRT or LRT station? The Getty center has limited hours, relatively small-to-medium demand at most, and I don't think it is open 7 days a week. Right? It certainly has only seasonal demand. And, nothing else is up in that area, right? I think the only reason it lands on a map is that it kinda makes sense to the map maker, and, it breaks up the long distance between stations.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 8, 2010 7:02:41 GMT -8
^ Wow, that is cool. I like maps like that. So do I. It usually shows more lines. But I like the one YOU provided better. When this map was made (early 09, I think), projects like the 405 corridor and Crenshaw corridor were still in the mode technology alternatives, IIRC. At this point, both projects are favored as LRT, I believe. This is where things get tricky, I think. The truth is, I don't think the Crenshaw corridor should head to LAX and Long Beach forever. Even when it's extended to Hollywood, I don't think that merits it having a direct connection with LAX. Continuing on either Hawthorne or Crenshaw would have it go through or near dense areas and hit potentially major destinations like the Torrance Promenade, Del Amo Mall or El Camino College. The Green Line and 405 corridor are planned on connecting to LAX. Plus we're already planning on the Harbor Subdivision (basically the southern portion of the 405 corridor) as a direct connection with downtown, perhaps as a dual LRT/Commuter Rail corridor (in other words, we would have an LRT AND Metrolink-but only to LAX). Yeah that's probably right.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 8, 2010 7:56:16 GMT -8
Thanks! This is a great map, since it shows population density around the potential lines and stations. Is there a similar map of employment density, which is at least as important?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 8, 2010 10:16:48 GMT -8
Thanks! This is a great map, since it shows population density around the potential lines and stations. Is there a similar map of employment density, which is at least as important? I've posted the companion 2030 employment density map here.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 8, 2010 14:54:11 GMT -8
^ Interesting. It looks like Hawthorne Airport employs a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 8, 2010 15:31:30 GMT -8
^ Interesting. It looks like Hawthorne Airport employs a lot of people. Likely not the airport. My guess is the former Northrop Plant (where the airport came from) now owned by Vaught Industries just behind the airport. But I don't think that they have but a fraction of the people that used to work there 25 years ago. They probably employ hundreds instead of tens of thousands. There are lots of other businesses around there, but I'm guessing that it's on the low end of that ridiculously wide density range.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 8, 2010 20:38:03 GMT -8
...I'm guessing that it's on the low end of that ridiculously wide density range. That square in Hawthorne has 10 to 50k jobs per square mile in 2006, according to this: (22 jobs per acre is equivalent to 14,000 per square mile) The highest job density in Southern California is in Downtown LA, where one census block around Metro Center station has over 240,000 jobs per square mile (>300 per acre) in 2006. The Civic Center also has over 100,000 jobs per square mile. The next most dense blocks are in Century City and Westwood (UCLA) at 50 to 100k per mile. Its a shame the Metro map does not distinguish between these higher density areas. There is a big difference between 12k and 240k jobs per mile; that's the difference between 3000 jobs in a 1/4 mile / 6 minute walk from a station, and 60,000 jobs within the same walking distance. Here's the data I have from 2006 based on a SCAG map. I did not bother to draw all the areas with moderate job densities (light green on the map above), only the ones that would be dark green on the Metro map: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00047c505152307d33fac&ll=33.974115,-118.144226&spn=0.535262,0.877533&z=10
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 8, 2010 20:48:05 GMT -8
maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&start=0&num=200&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00047bbd63b18dd455fce&ll=34.031038,-118.269539&spn=0.133726,0.219383&z=12 For comparison to the 2030 map, this google-based map (which I have posted before) shows boundaries of population density based on the 2000 census. It shows higher levels of density within some of the areas labeled "33 to 185 acre" (21k to 100k per square mile) on the 2030 Metro planning map. Westlake, Korea Town, East Hollywood, Central Long Beach have the highest density areas currently, with a few small high density population patches also found in Westwood, Boyle Heights, Glendale, and Huntington Park. It appear that Downtown LA will also have a high-density area around Little Tokyo when this latest census is released. Everywhere else is less than 35k per mile, and can be distinguised well on Metro's map.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jun 8, 2010 22:37:37 GMT -8
IMO, for the Westside N/S corridor to be feasible, it would need to be constructed in this order: (- Expo Phase 2) (- Westside Subway) - Crenshaw Phase 1 - Sepulveda Pass (Orange Line to Purple line) - Westwood line (Purple line to Expo/Westwood) - Green Line LAX Extension (although this could be anytime after Crenshaw) - North from LAX (to Expo/Westwood) - Lincoln line This seems probable, too: once there's rail through the pass, the logical thing to do is send it south on Westwood. Once there's a Crenshaw line connecting the Green and Expo lines, the regional benefit of a Lincoln line connecting the two will be somewhat diminished (don't get me wrong though, it'll be a great line and a useful connection, but lower as a priority). Then we would just be sitting on a gap between LAX and the Westwood segment. As for the routing of the Lincoln segment, would it be politically feasible to tunnel under the runways of LAX? If concerns about safety are overcome, then one possible route would be for the Lincoln line to run from the South Bay extension (along with the Crenshaw line), then instead of veering east near the 105, head underground and north(west) to meet the LAX extension at heading off down Lincoln. In this scenario, the 405 (Green) Line would share tracks with Crenshaw between Aviation/Century and Aviation/LAX, the Green and Lincoln lines would share tracks between LAX and Lincoln, and the Lincoln and Crenshaw lines would share tracks south of El Segundo. It would look something like this: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102451084396223080723.00047f25b74cafc89251d&ll=33.947062,-118.393822&spn=0.154649,0.264702&z=12
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 9, 2010 6:23:40 GMT -8
IMO, for the Westside N/S corridor to be feasible, it would need to be constructed in this order: (- Expo Phase 2) (- Westside Subway) - Crenshaw Phase 1 - Sepulveda Pass (Orange Line to Purple line) - Westwood line (Purple line to Expo/Westwood) - Green Line LAX Extension (although this could be anytime after Crenshaw) - North from LAX (to Expo/Westwood) - Lincoln line This seems probable, too: once there's rail through the pass, the logical thing to do is send it south on Westwood. Once there's a Crenshaw line connecting the Green and Expo lines, the regional benefit of a Lincoln line connecting the two will be somewhat diminished (don't get me wrong though, it'll be a great line and a useful connection, but lower as a priority). Then we would just be sitting on a gap between LAX and the Westwood segment. As for the routing of the Lincoln segment, would it be politically feasible to tunnel under the runways of LAX? If concerns about safety are overcome, then one possible route would be for the Lincoln line to run from the South Bay extension (along with the Crenshaw line), then instead of veering east near the 105, head underground and north(west) to meet the LAX extension at heading off down Lincoln. In this scenario, the 405 (Green) Line would share tracks with Crenshaw between Aviation/Century and Aviation/LAX, the Green and Lincoln lines would share tracks between LAX and Lincoln, and the Lincoln and Crenshaw lines would share tracks south of El Segundo. It would look something like this: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102451084396223080723.00047f25b74cafc89251d&ll=33.947062,-118.393822&spn=0.154649,0.264702&z=12 This has already been tentatively studied, and I regret to inform you that LAX, Metro and the LADOT all recognized during the Green Line Interagency Task Force a couple of years ago that the environmental hazards and the need to avoid existing infrastructure (much of it unknown after all these years) would make a LAX Subway about $1 billion from the South Bay to north of LAX. Realistically, we VERY much need to stick to the game plan that Metro already has of (roughly) the Green/Crenshaw Line forking at around Century Blvd., going west to about Airport (approx.), then north to 98th (approx.) and ending at Parking Lot C. The money is there for that in Measure R, and we need to stop trying to replace the LAX People Mover as a closer access to the LAX terminals than Century/Aviation. Beyond Parking Lot C (southeast corner of Sepulveda/Lincoln), this north coast extension of the Green Line, originally conceived to Marina Del Rey, would be the way to go to the Westside.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 9, 2010 8:43:10 GMT -8
As for the routing of the Lincoln segment, would it be politically feasible to tunnel under the runways of LAX? To augment Ken's very good assessment of the situation, I present a passage from the 1994 Metro Green Line Northern Extension FSEIR: The 1989 Draft EIR considered an option, Alternative 2, which would have provided service via subway to an airport station located between Terminals 1 and 2. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration for several reasons. Alternative 2 could present major utility conflicts and construction complexities at the portal and at the LAX Station location. Air passenger service would be disrupted since construction of the station would temporarily close two gates at each terminal. The study also indicated that two contamination areas were known to exist or were in proximity of that alternative and that other contamination sites also appeared to be in the vicinity of the proposed corridor route. Because of the geometrics necessary for this alignment, it also would not have served Century Boulevard, Lot C, or Westchester Parkway. Therefore, this alternative did not maximize regional access, and it would have been considerably more expensive than the other alternatives considered in the Draft EIR. Subsequent to completion of the EIR, the LAX/Green Line lnteragency Transit Study Joint Policy Group and Technical Task Force, composed of representatives from various Federal, state, and local agencies as well as from the City Council, Mayor, and County Supervisor's offices, studied three additional subway alternatives. These were known as Options 1,2, and 5-RG. All three alternatives were found to be considerably more expensive than the two rail alternatives analyzed in this SEIR. For example, Option 5-RG was estimated to cost about $560 million. Like the previous subway alternative studied. there were also engineering difficulties associated with building a subway underneath the airport facilities. In addition, none of these options would serve any of the areas on the east end of the airport. I personally would also like to see a through rail line directly serving the Central Terminal Area of LAX, but it just doesn't seem feasible.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 9, 2010 15:17:36 GMT -8
The following is from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's blog: On track for a faster train to WestwoodJune 7, 2010 It’s a frustrated motorist’s drive-time dream: ditching the westbound traffic and jumping on a subway to Westwood. That rush hour fantasy just got closer to reality with recent developments in Washington that boost the subway’s chances for federal funding while potentially making it much quicker to build. How much quicker? Construction on the $4.2 billion project could start in 2013, and extend the subway all the way to Westwood by 2017. (Earlier projections had it getting as far as the Fairfax District by 2019 and not arriving in Westwood until 2036.) In other words, under the accelerated timetable, somebody who’s now in the 5th grade could be riding the subway to their freshman classes at UCLA—instead of waiting until long after they get their Ph.D. The Westside Subway Extension is one of a dozen local transit projects that would be accelerated under the so-called 30/10 plan, which on Friday got a boost from Washington when U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer released a letter from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood signaling administration support for the initiative. The 30/10 plan, initiated by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and unanimously supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors, would borrow against future Measure R funding to build in 10 years projects that ordinarily would have taken 30. (For a full list of the projects, click here.) Boxer also announced another development with major ramifications for the Westside Subway Extension project. Instead of breaking the subway extension into three separate legs, the entire 9.3-mile stretch will now be considered as a single project by the Federal Transit Administration. That’s important because the line’s cost-effectiveness—the number of riders and how much time they’ll save measured against the cost of the project—is more compelling with the inclusion of the Westwood station, which is projected to have between 11,000 and 14,000 boardings a day. And that could provide a competitive edge when it comes to obtaining the federal funding that will be necessary to complete the project. “This represents the most signficant ‘good news’ for the Wilshire subway extension since the passage of Measure R in 2008,” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a member of Metro’s Board of Directors. “Federal transit officials recognize the value of accelerating the subway extension and the other 11 Measure R transit projects so that we can realize their benefit in our lifetime.” Aside from the federal money Metro would need to borrow as part of the 30/10 initiative, officials also are counting on the federal government to kick in about half the subway’s cost—some $2.1 billion. Since the project needs to compete with other projects around the country to secure those funds, the decision to evaluate the extension as a whole is key. Raffi Haig Hamparian, Metro government relations manager for federal affairs, said the decision to evaluate the subway as a single project “sets the stage for a major—and some would say overdue—federal investment in Los Angeles County.” He added that the fast-tracking of the subway, along with other projects, including the Regional Connector, would move the region “one step closer to having a world class rail system in L.A. County, something voters envisioned when they overwhelmingly supported Measure R.” Even with the latest developments in Washington, the subway project still has a long way to go before construction can start. For one thing, despite Transportation Secretary LaHood’s letter to Boxer, the 30/10 plan has yet to be formally embraced by the government. And funding for the subway under the federal “New Starts” program is not assured. Preliminary environmental work on the project is underway now, with a series of community meetings scheduled for this summer before the planned midsummer released of a draft environmental impact report. (Here’s an informative presentation from the meetings held in April.) Public hearings on the report will take place before it is presented to Metro’s Board of Directors In September. Once a “locally preferred alternative” route is adopted, work will begin on a final environmental impact report expected to go before the board in the fall of 2011. Then come a number of steps—including obtaining an early commitment from the Federal Transit Administration to provide federal money for the project—before a final funding agreement could be negotiated. Still, the latest developments from Washington mean “we’re now on a fast track,” Hamparian said. “We used to talk about the subway in the abstract—like a Picasso painting. Now people ask, ‘When is construction going to start?’ “ Posted 6/07/10
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 10, 2010 1:23:03 GMT -8
I recently responded to a comment by a poster on Streetsblog who brought up the idea of increasing bus service instead of investing 14 billion dollars in the Measure R transit projects. The original idea was: "The 30/10 plan will build a select number of routes that will affect a relatively small number of people. We could use the same amount of money to make changes that would truly transform ALL of Los Angeles - for the same amount of money, we could have bus-only lanes on every major road in the city, running every 2 minutes, with protected transfer stations and signal priority - oh, and free fares. "Unfortunately, though the bus-only lanes and signal priority are good ideas, the operations costs don't work out. Metro currently spends about 1 billion dollars per year on bus and rail operations, to provide 8.3 million revenue service hours (one bus or train operated for one hour), at a cost of about $100 per revenue hour. 7.6 million of those service hours are in the bus system. Numbers are from this budget: thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BudgetService.jpgThe buses average 12.7 miles per hour in service currently (divide total revenue miles by total service hours), while the rail lines average 23.2 revenue miles per revenue service hour. If giving buses signal priority and exclusive lanes increased average bus speeds to 18 mph (which is the same speed as the Eastside Gold Line or the Blue Line on the street-running portion in Downtown LA), local and rapid lines included, you could provide 40% more frequent service for free, or you could eliminate fares on buses and still provide slightly more frequent service. However, you are suggesting running buses "every 2 minutes." That seems a bit much; how about we run buses every 4 minutes, up from an average of every 10 to 20 minutes today (about every 15 minutes or so on average, including many less popular routes). That will approximately quadruple the service miles, and even with the assumed much faster speeds, will cost an extra 1 billion dollars per year [Metro spends $100 per bus service hour]. Including inflation, that will be over $50 billion over 30 years, even with moderate 4% annual inflation in bus operations costs. The 30/10 rail projects will only cost 14 billion in local funds, and the state and federal government may pick up part of that cost as well: www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/03/01/how-feasible-is-antonio-villaraigosas-3010-gambit-for-los-angeles-transit/Now, I'm all for signal priority, proof-of-payment, and exclusive lanes for buses, due to the faster, cheaper and more reliable service. But that's no reason to cancel the Purple line to Westwood, or the Regional Connector in Downtown. Buses are expensive to operate and have limited capacity to handle busy routes like Wilshire Blvd, Vermont Blvd, and paths thru Downtown LA. We should have more and better buses, but we need more trains too.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 10, 2010 12:09:51 GMT -8
why on earth would you want to end at the el monte airport. nothing goes their but private cessnas. and, my god people, how many times do i have to tell you. el monte busway HRT would be a disaster and would completely bypass the dense residential areas in el sereno alhambra and san gabriel. it would be a ridership dead zone between cal state and el monte if built that way...
|
|