|
|
Post by masonite on May 22, 2018 22:54:07 GMT -8
Metro is the major funder of Metrolink. Eventually Metro is not going to be able to afford to run $1.75 light rail lines out 20-25 miles where everyone is riding one direction while train cars going the opposite direction are almost completely empty. The chickens will come home to roost soon. Metro is going to have to make some brutal decisions in the next few years. Cut inner city bus service while funding suburban light rail operations, raise fares on everyone, or institute some sort of distanced based fare system. Let's not transpose the bus problem over to light rail. Metro's bus ridership is down big time. This isn't due to running light rail to Azusa. Bus service is going to be cut because people aren't riding Metro buses enough.
It all comes from the same pot of money. If light rail, which is the least efficient form of transit in terms of cost recovery, continues to grow, especially with empty trains and we fool ourselves into believing it is cheap, the money will have to come from somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 23, 2018 1:37:04 GMT -8
Can you blame them considering how high Metrolink prices are, and how seldom the frequencies are? Since both of those are controlled by Metrolink's inter-county board, perhaps LA County would be better off running a commuter rail service on its own. Metro is the major funder of Metrolink. Eventually Metro is not going to be able to afford to run $1.75 light rail lines out 20-25 miles where everyone is riding one direction while train cars going the opposite direction are almost completely empty. The chickens will come home to roost soon. Metro is going to have to make some brutal decisions in the next few years. Cut inner city bus service while funding suburban light rail operations, raise fares on everyone, or institute some sort of distanced based fare system. With ExpressLanes and sales tax revenues coming in higher than expected the past couple of years (and 20% of Measure M goes to transit operations, higher than the 17% spent on freeways), and SB1 and PPP funding also being an unexpected infusion of revenue, is it really true that the chickens will come home to roost soon? The ExpressLanes already pay for better Silver Line service and I believe they have a surplus of revenue they are going to just use to loan out to create more ExpressLanes. There are more ExpressLanes coming in on the 105, 405 and more. I think it makes sense to have distance-based fares on rail simply for equity purposes, but I don’t think they are staring a brutal situation in the face when they are making good headway in securing funding for the acceleration of the WSAB and other lines 10-15 years ahead of schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 23, 2018 8:31:45 GMT -8
Metro is the major funder of Metrolink. Eventually Metro is not going to be able to afford to run $1.75 light rail lines out 20-25 miles where everyone is riding one direction while train cars going the opposite direction are almost completely empty. The chickens will come home to roost soon. Metro is going to have to make some brutal decisions in the next few years. Cut inner city bus service while funding suburban light rail operations, raise fares on everyone, or institute some sort of distanced based fare system. With ExpressLanes and sales tax revenues coming in higher than expected the past couple of years (and 20% of Measure M goes to transit operations, higher than the 17% spent on freeways), and SB1 and PPP funding also being an unexpected infusion of revenue, is it really true that the chickens will come home to roost soon? The ExpressLanes already pay for better Silver Line service and I believe they have a surplus of revenue they are going to just use to loan out to create more ExpressLanes. There are more ExpressLanes coming in on the 105, 405 and more. I think it makes sense to have distance-based fares on rail simply for equity purposes, but I don’t think they are staring a brutal situation in the face when they are making good headway in securing funding for the acceleration of the WSAB and other lines 10-15 years ahead of schedule. Express lane money is tiny. Yes, the current Express Lanes helped buy some busses for the Silver Line and maybe Silver Line Operations a little bit, but besides that one line it is a nothing. SB1 funding may go away per the Nov. election, which would leave a massive hole. We'll see. Measure R money is below expectations. The LA Times reported the other day it was $5B below projections. As more sales go online, LA County is sometimes left with nothing as sales taxes go to the jurisdiction with the warehouse location if they don't have another nexus. Right now we are in an economic boom, but sales taxes are expected to flatten out going forward. Meanwhile, more and more people don't feel safe riding and security is having to be increased. Busses and trains and stations are often becoming homeless camps and Metro just increased its outreach budget here. The system is aging with the entire Blue Line having to be shut down and rehabbed next year. Costs for workers and general operations continue to increase. Recovery rates continue to fall. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 23, 2018 9:40:48 GMT -8
With ExpressLanes and sales tax revenues coming in higher than expected the past couple of years (and 20% of Measure M goes to transit operations, higher than the 17% spent on freeways), and SB1 and PPP funding also being an unexpected infusion of revenue, is it really true that the chickens will come home to roost soon? The ExpressLanes already pay for better Silver Line service and I believe they have a surplus of revenue they are going to just use to loan out to create more ExpressLanes. There are more ExpressLanes coming in on the 105, 405 and more. I think it makes sense to have distance-based fares on rail simply for equity purposes, but I don’t think they are staring a brutal situation in the face when they are making good headway in securing funding for the acceleration of the WSAB and other lines 10-15 years ahead of schedule. Express lane money is tiny. Yes, the current Express Lanes helped buy some busses for the Silver Line and maybe Silver Line Operations a little bit, but besides that one line it is a nothing. SB1 funding may go away per the Nov. election, which would leave a massive hole. We'll see. Measure R money is below expectations. The LA Times reported the other day it was $5B below projections. As more sales go online, LA County is sometimes left with nothing as sales taxes go to the jurisdiction with the warehouse location if they don't have another nexus. Right now we are in an economic boom, but sales taxes are expected to flatten out going forward. Meanwhile, more and more people don't feel safe riding and security is having to be increased. Busses and trains and stations are often becoming homeless camps and Metro just increased its outreach budget here. The system is aging with the entire Blue Line having to be shut down and rehabbed next year. Costs for workers and general operations continue to increase. Recovery rates continue to fall. ExpressLanes revenue is not tiny. They spent only a tiny portion of the money on the Silver Line and other projects. They have a large surplus that they are just sitting on at the moment because they intend to spend it on building more ExpressLanes. They only spent 3% of the money available for grants and they stopped giving grants to prepare to spend the money on more ExpressLanes: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3157224&GUID=51137495-B316-4CDA-A0F5-17935058EECA&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=ExpressLanes&FullText=1In the last quarter, ExpressLanes revenue was $37.2 million ($5.7 million above forecast) while transit fare revenue was $150.5 million ($11.2 million below forecast): metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3472180&GUID=34AFC6C1-47BD-4ED6-9A64-A649A123D3D0&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=ExpressLanes&FullText=1They have 3 ExpressLane projects in the 28 by 28 plan and there are more in the long range plan. It will definitely bring a large amount of revenue, comparable to fare revenue, when these projects are built out. Where is the article that says Measure R was $5 billion below projections? The audit documents are available for Measure R: 2017: Forecast was $780 million, actual revenue was $787.9 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY17.pdf2016: Forecast was $763.5 million, actual revenue was $765 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY16.pdf2015: Forecast was $734.2 million, actual revenue was $745.9 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY15_2016-0418.pdf2014: Forecast was $704.8 million, actual revenue was $714.2 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY14_2015-0406.pdf2013: Forecast was $629.3 million, actual revenue was $684.9 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY13_AA.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 23, 2018 17:08:48 GMT -8
Express lane money is tiny. Yes, the current Express Lanes helped buy some busses for the Silver Line and maybe Silver Line Operations a little bit, but besides that one line it is a nothing. SB1 funding may go away per the Nov. election, which would leave a massive hole. We'll see. Measure R money is below expectations. The LA Times reported the other day it was $5B below projections. As more sales go online, LA County is sometimes left with nothing as sales taxes go to the jurisdiction with the warehouse location if they don't have another nexus. Right now we are in an economic boom, but sales taxes are expected to flatten out going forward. Meanwhile, more and more people don't feel safe riding and security is having to be increased. Busses and trains and stations are often becoming homeless camps and Metro just increased its outreach budget here. The system is aging with the entire Blue Line having to be shut down and rehabbed next year. Costs for workers and general operations continue to increase. Recovery rates continue to fall. ExpressLanes revenue is not tiny. They spent only a tiny portion of the money on the Silver Line and other projects. They have a large surplus that they are just sitting on at the moment because they intend to spend it on building more ExpressLanes. They only spent 3% of the money available for grants and they stopped giving grants to prepare to spend the money on more ExpressLanes: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3157224&GUID=51137495-B316-4CDA-A0F5-17935058EECA&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=ExpressLanes&FullText=1In the last quarter, ExpressLanes revenue was $37.2 million ($5.7 million above forecast) while transit fare revenue was $150.5 million ($11.2 million below forecast): metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3472180&GUID=34AFC6C1-47BD-4ED6-9A64-A649A123D3D0&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=ExpressLanes&FullText=1They have 3 ExpressLane projects in the 28 by 28 plan and there are more in the long range plan. It will definitely bring a large amount of revenue, comparable to fare revenue, when these projects are built out. Where is the article that says Measure R was $5 billion below projections? The audit documents are available for Measure R: 2017: Forecast was $780 million, actual revenue was $787.9 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY17.pdf2016: Forecast was $763.5 million, actual revenue was $765 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY16.pdf2015: Forecast was $734.2 million, actual revenue was $745.9 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY15_2016-0418.pdf2014: Forecast was $704.8 million, actual revenue was $714.2 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY14_2015-0406.pdf2013: Forecast was $629.3 million, actual revenue was $684.9 million media.metro.net/measureR/images/reports_measurer_FY13_AA.pdfAt the end of the article they mention the $5B shortfall. The reports you cited just compare the current budget for that year, which is totally different than comparing from the original passage date. On the Express Lanes, you are citing the revenue, but not the expenses that are required to run the program including the technical support, billing, paying for CHP enforcement (which is a mess). There is a surplus, but it is not huge. Again, we are talking about an operating deficit in the neighborhood of $1.5B. Even if all the Express Lanes surplus funds were used here, it would barely be a drop in the bucket to the overall system. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 23, 2018 21:42:00 GMT -8
Can you blame them considering how high Metrolink prices are, and how seldom the frequencies are? Since both of those are controlled by Metrolink's inter-county board, perhaps LA County would be better off running a commuter rail service on its own. Metro is the major funder of Metrolink. Eventually Metro is not going to be able to afford to run $1.75 light rail lines out 20-25 miles where everyone is riding one direction while train cars going the opposite direction are almost completely empty. The chickens will come home to roost soon.
If you're against light rail, then you ought to be supporting my comment about adding decent commuter rail as more appropriate than adding light rail, either using Metro or Metrolink. Metrolink has been flailing for decades now; and even if Metro is the main contributor to Metrolink, only 4 of the 11 SCRRA members represent LA County - it's not going to be beef up service if LA County's four votes are the only ones in favor of it. It's slowly dropping prices out of the stratosphere, but it still has disappointing schedules. Hence the insistence for Metro light rail by LA County cities, and hence my suggestion for an alternate - to develop a Metro-run commuter service for outlying LA County cities - with less expensive, shorter and more frequent runs, and longer hours, than the inter-county Metrolink trains but more expensive and less frequent than Metro rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 23, 2018 22:38:00 GMT -8
Let's not transpose the bus problem over to light rail. Metro's bus ridership is down big time. This isn't due to running light rail to Azusa. Bus service is going to be cut because people aren't riding Metro buses enough.
It all comes from the same pot of money. If light rail, which is the least efficient form of transit in terms of cost recovery, continues to grow, especially with empty trains and we fool ourselves into believing it is cheap, the money will have to come from somewhere. Our light rail is poor in terms of farebox recovery (although our HRT hasn't been doing so well, either, and if bus ridership keeps dropping, then it's all equal, no?). But Metro can realize other gains, such as from property investment around the stations, for instance. The WSAB and Whittier lines have a lot of opportunities for picking up cheap real estate and developing it; some of them are already in play. I'd expect multiple developments like North Hollywood along those lines. And development would be a positive feedback loop, increasing future ridership while returning rent. Will Metro actually do multiple NoHo redevelopments along these properties ... well, I'd be surprised if they did. I certainly hope so.
Metro's already doing positive things like developments, tolls, and parking fees. Development anywhere in the county is going more vertical. Metro's pot will be expanding if we see a change in the White House or Congress - right now it's as bad as it possibly can be. We'll have a semblance of a wide rail network once the Sepulveda pass and Crenshaw to WeHo are done. Metro will have to adjust to fit its customers; but I don't think things are quite as bad as you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on May 24, 2018 9:14:52 GMT -8
Correct on Metrolink in Los Angeles County. The ATSF harbor line which is now having the Crenshaw line built on it could have had both Metrolink and Light Rail to LAX and to the South Bay. The ROW is wide enough for three tracks. But as it is now most likely will not happen. Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal trains from the Inland empire, Palmdale, Orange County and Ventura lines could have brought a lot of people to LAX faster than transfers to Metro.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 24, 2018 13:18:49 GMT -8
It all comes from the same pot of money. If light rail, which is the least efficient form of transit in terms of cost recovery, continues to grow, especially with empty trains and we fool ourselves into believing it is cheap, the money will have to come from somewhere. Our light rail is poor in terms of farebox recovery (although our HRT hasn't been doing so well, either, and if bus ridership keeps dropping, then it's all equal, no?). But Metro can realize other gains, such as from property investment around the stations, for instance. The WSAB and Whittier lines have a lot of opportunities for picking up cheap real estate and developing it; some of them are already in play. I'd expect multiple developments like North Hollywood along those lines. And development would be a positive feedback loop, increasing future ridership while returning rent. Will Metro actually do multiple NoHo redevelopments along these properties ... well, I'd be surprised if they did. I certainly hope so.
Metro's already doing positive things like developments, tolls, and parking fees. Development anywhere in the county is going more vertical. Metro's pot will be expanding if we see a change in the White House or Congress - right now it's as bad as it possibly can be. We'll have a semblance of a wide rail network once the Sepulveda pass and Crenshaw to WeHo are done. Metro will have to adjust to fit its customers; but I don't think things are quite as bad as you're saying. I agree with some of this. I think Express Lanes is a good thing and also parking fees are good as well just not big money makers. On development, Metro is conflicted as it is controlled by LA City and County politicians who are using it to expand affordable housing. Metro is not going to make any money buying parcels of land for rail building and then insisting 35% be held for low income housing. For example, the old bus yard in Venice that is now vacant is only a few blocks from the beach and Metro could make a pretty penny by selling to the highest bidder as land values have skyrocketed here. However, Metro won't sell to the highest bidder. Mike Bonin wants them to do a low income development here, which means a sharply reduced land value. Nothing has happened for years here and now it may become a homeless shelter for the next few years. Right now things look pretty good, although we can't even get New Starts money for 3rd phase of the Purple Line yet, which would have been a slam dunk before Trump got into office. The LA Times came out with a poll on the repeal of SB1 and it is not pretty. 51% - 38% for repeal. That is a big deficit to make up. People forget that outside of LA and SF, most people are for repeal. This will be a disaster for Metro. The LAX station on the People Mover as well as the Gold Line Extension to Montclair would be threatened as they are relying on money from SB1. Union Station run through tracks and some other things as well would be in big trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 24, 2018 14:25:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 24, 2018 22:47:05 GMT -8
I've gotta imagine the Board will go with the safe choice politically, underground Alameda to LAUS. I'm just hoping that they don't build the station in the front parking lot of LAUS.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 24, 2018 23:53:57 GMT -8
Ha-ha! Let's just hope they don't decide to put the station under Olvera Street! Although putting it on Main St. BETWEEN Olvera Street and the Queen of the Angele's Church does have some appeal....
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Magruder on May 25, 2018 3:34:57 GMT -8
I'm an outsider - live in Northern California, but raised in Los Angeles - so don't understand all of the context. One thing I don't understand is the need for parallel routes. Why shouldn't the WSAB line use the same tracks/platforms as the Gold Line if it goes to LAUS? If the WSAB goes to downtown, why shouldn't the Blue Line and the WSAB share the same tracks? These are all relatively low density lines (trains at the most every 5 minutes) when one compares them with much of the rest of the world. (Example: Oslo where the central subway which combines several lines has 90 second headways.) I understand the problem with grade crossings and street running that simply putting WSAB trains on the Blue Line would create, but shouldn't this be an opportunity to markedly improve service by combining the Blue Line and WASB in a single, grade crossing free/street running free, line?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 25, 2018 11:59:01 GMT -8
I'm an outsider - live in Northern California, but raised in Los Angeles - so don't understand all of the context. One thing I don't understand is the need for parallel routes. Why shouldn't the WSAB line use the same tracks/platforms as the Gold Line if it goes to LAUS? If the WSAB goes to downtown, why shouldn't the Blue Line and the WSAB share the same tracks? These are all relatively low density lines (trains at the most every 5 minutes) when one compares them with much of the rest of the world. (Example: Oslo where the central subway which combines several lines has 90 second headways.) I understand the problem with grade crossings and street running that simply putting WSAB trains on the Blue Line would create, but shouldn't this be an opportunity to markedly improve service by combining the Blue Line and WASB in a single, grade crossing free/street running free, line? These are good questions but they all have long answers  Why shouldn't the WSAB line use the same tracks/platforms as the Gold Line if it goes to LAUS?Well, most of us are saying it shouldn't go to LAUS... Metro's own data shows most WASB riders will end up in the transit core and West of Downtown LA. So WASB should go to either Pershing Square or Metro Center. As to why it can't share Gold line tracks... It is because Metro didn't plan it that way. They are constructing a 2-way junction at Little Tokyo and a new underground station as part of the Regional Connector project. There is no provision for a 3rd branch there and there is no way any politician will advocate demolishing a new train station and junction that hasn't even opened yet. So WASB cannot physically share Gold line tracks. If the WSAB goes to downtown, why shouldn't the Blue Line and the WSAB share the same tracks? The Downtown LA tracks will have 2 to 3 minutes headway once the Regional Connector is completed and the trains thru-routed. So adding another line like WASB to the existing tracks is not ideal.
shouldn't this be an opportunity to markedly improve service by combining the Blue Line and WASB in a single, grade crossing free/street running free, line?And Metro is currently trying to secure funding to put more Expo/Blue line tracks underground, including the junction at Washington Blvd. But the issue is still that you are trying to force more trains thru the Regional Connector, and now with an unbalanced schedule. You have 3 high frequency branches from the south (Expo, Blue, WASB) but only two branches from the north (Foothill and Eastside) feeding into Regional Connector. And long term, WASB should be extended west beyond Downtown, so having its own tunnel makes sense. Forcing WASB into the same tunnel as Blue line doesn't expand the rail capacity serving Downtown LA and beyond. |
|
|
|
Post by JH_BW on May 28, 2018 5:54:44 GMT -8
My biggest objection to this project is that Metro is considering building a new subway through what is actually an extremely low-density area (the produce district), strictly for the purpose of speed. All of the options suffer from this problem, including the underground options to Union Station. It just seems wasteful. It's disingenuous to call the produce/fashion district a low density area. The district may be low in population but it is dense in jobs and shopping destinations, especially for the working-class Latino population based in the gateway cities. If people are coming from Huntington Park or Bell to downtown, they're probably bound for this part of it rather than an office tower on Bunker Hill. Also, option G's station at Los Angeles is in a corner of the dense Historic Core that sits outside the range of 7th/Metro and Pershing Square stations. By the way, has anybody yet brought up that Union Station is only more of a hub than 7th/Metro if you're taking a Metrolink or Amtrak train? What proportion of riders would transfer from a suburban line to the suburban/regional rail network, or the other way around? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 31, 2018 17:17:06 GMT -8
Metro's own data shows vast majority of WASB riders will end up in the transit core and adjacent areas (garment and produce districts) or the west side (Westwood and Santa Monica were the big clusters). In another word, virtually all of the WASB riders will need to transfer at Union Station (which will involve a long 1/4 mile walk to reach either Red/Purple or Glod line platforms).
Option G really makes the most sense if you want to give the Downtown LA-bound WASB riders an one-seat ride. Will also give West side-bound riders a much better transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Jun 1, 2018 10:45:15 GMT -8
As is common in the planning process for many transit systems, policy makers and other members of the general public (i.e. not regular transit users) only think of transit in terms of trips that they might make on an occasional basis, which is why they clamor for connections to airports and parks. Most of the people on this forum know that transit should be designed for the trips that are going to be made most frequently by the largest number of people, e.g. daily commute trips to work and school. It's a good idea to connect the major attractions to transit, but we shouldn't be afraid to design a system that requires transfers, as long as the service frequency is adequate.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 5, 2018 14:47:42 GMT -8
My biggest objection to this project is that Metro is considering building a new subway through what is actually an extremely low-density area (the produce district), strictly for the purpose of speed. All of the options suffer from this problem, including the underground options to Union Station. It just seems wasteful. It's disingenuous to call the produce/fashion district a low density area. The district may be low in population but it is dense in jobs and shopping destinations, especially for the working-class Latino population based in the gateway cities. If people are coming from Huntington Park or Bell to downtown, they're probably bound for this part of it rather than an office tower on Bunker Hill. Also, option G's station at Los Angeles is in a corner of the dense Historic Core that sits outside the range of 7th/Metro and Pershing Square stations. I was born and raised in Huntington Park (except for two years in South Gate). And now I live in Long Beach. The last thing I want to do is limit options for the people of the Southeast county. For the record, I didn't call the Fashion District a low-density area: I was referring to the other station, at 7th/Alameda (near the Produce District and nowhere near the Fashion District). Admittedly, the Fashion District/Southern Historic Core station would be a huge loss under my proposal. Especially to WSAB patrons. Of the "official" options, I will definitely support option G to 7th/Metro. But in general, I really do think we need to... - ...start thinking about how to grow our Metro system, rather than only thinking about only one line at a time, in isolation.
- ...remember to fix the long-standing problems of the Blue Line along Washington Blvd and Flower Street.
- ...realize that two tracks is unacceptable for any line.
- ...come up with the best alternatives as a community through dialogue, rather than just accepting whatever options Metro staff comes up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 5, 2018 20:03:17 GMT -8
7th/Alameda is where the Row is and where 6am will be. It’s walking distance to hot places like Church and State, Urban Radish, and Bestia in the arts district. It’s pretty much booming now and is going to look a lot different in just a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 27, 2019 1:38:17 GMT -8
With ExpressLanes and sales tax revenues coming in higher than expected the past couple of years (and 20% of Measure M goes to transit operations, higher than the 17% spent on freeways), and SB1 and PPP funding also being an unexpected infusion of revenue, is it really true that the chickens will come home to roost soon? The ExpressLanes already pay for better Silver Line service and I believe they have a surplus of revenue they are going to just use to loan out to create more ExpressLanes. There are more ExpressLanes coming in on the 105, 405 and more. I think it makes sense to have distance-based fares on rail simply for equity purposes, but I don’t think they are staring a brutal situation in the face when they are making good headway in securing funding for the acceleration of the WSAB and other lines 10-15 years ahead of schedule. Express lane money is tiny. Yes, the current Express Lanes helped buy some busses for the Silver Line and maybe Silver Line Operations a little bit, but besides that one line it is a nothing. SB1 funding may go away per the Nov. election, which would leave a massive hole. We'll see. Measure R money is below expectations. The LA Times reported the other day it was $5B below projections. As more sales go online, LA County is sometimes left with nothing as sales taxes go to the jurisdiction with the warehouse location if they don't have another nexus. Right now we are in an economic boom, but sales taxes are expected to flatten out going forward. Meanwhile, more and more people don't feel safe riding and security is having to be increased. Busses and trains and stations are often becoming homeless camps and Metro just increased its outreach budget here. The system is aging with the entire Blue Line having to be shut down and rehabbed next year. Costs for workers and general operations continue to increase. Recovery rates continue to fall. For another random reason, I was looking into the Measure R revenue received versus projected. Measure R predicted there would be $8.5 billion in revenue raised in the first 10 years from Measure R (July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2019). media.metro.net/measure_R/documents/expenditure_plan.pdfWe are 6 months away from the 10-year “anniversary” of Measure R and the Measure R revenue so far is $6,585,226,873 (as of December 31, 2018). media.metro.net/about_us/finance/images/measure_r_sales_tax_cash_receipts_122018.pdfIt looks like the 10-year total will be around $7 billion, which is off the prediction by $1.5 billion. The projection was off by a lot. They set aside $5.7 billion in their projections to be allocated to “contingency” and that is what will eat the shortfall. media.metro.net/board/Items/2011/05_may/20110519EMACItem5.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 28, 2019 7:19:57 GMT -8
Yesterday I went on a Metro tour for people that live along the WSAB corridor. The purpose was to get feedback on station elements, parking, TOD, artwork, platforms, etc. I don't think much came out that isn't already known, but I was able to clarify a few things that I was unsure about.
The reason for the station at Gardendale and not Imperial is that there is some sort of medical facility that will be expanding and that studies showed that station would be a big trip generator.
Metro will be branding all future stations to look more or less the same and have identical station elements (signage, passenger information systems, benches, canopies, etc.). WSAB will be the first to 100% use this branding although Crenshaw and the regional connector will "mostly" use these identical elements. This branding isn't being modeled after any of the existing stations or lines and will be new.
WSAB will predominantly use center platforms with the connections to the green line and to 7th/metro being two of the exceptions where side platforms will be used.
Metro will be installing digital passenger information screens in busier stations (7th/metro, union station, others?) similar to what they have in NYC and similar to NYC the cost will paid by advertisers.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 2, 2019 0:04:36 GMT -8
Metro is asking for $1.2 billion from the Federal Transit Administration for the West Santa Ana Branch Project.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 11, 2020 11:28:23 GMT -8
Some WSAB updates:
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 10, 2020 9:26:47 GMT -8
WSAB updates. They are slighty behind the estimated schedule they had provided in February 2020. The prior schedule was Draft EIR in Late 2020/Early 2021, with LPA selection on April 2021. The new schedule moves those estimates to Early 2021 and Mid 2021.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 16, 2021 12:09:01 GMT -8
Here’s a 22 page report on status of WSAB. Negotiations with Union Pacific look like they will be difficult and time-consuming.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 17, 2021 15:44:46 GMT -8
Seem to have wrong link in above.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 18, 2021 9:42:30 GMT -8
Seem to have wrong link in above. Sorry about that, it's fixed now. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 19, 2021 10:22:46 GMT -8
Thanks for the fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 30, 2021 2:25:04 GMT -8
I didn't read the entire document, but from what I did read there's still a lot of negotiating left to be done with regards to the Union Pacific owned ROW's. If I read correctly and everything pans out, construction should begin early 2024. As a side note, I didn't even know that the ROW that runs in the middle of Randolph St. is now called the La Habra ROW. All this time I thought it was called Whittier ROW. But anyway, I'm still very excited for this project (it's literally in my back yard) and its potential to transform the southeast part of L.A.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2021 10:31:04 GMT -8
WSAB updates. They are slighty behind the estimated schedule they had provided in February 2020. The prior schedule was Draft EIR in Late 2020/Early 2021, with LPA selection on April 2021. The new schedule moves those estimates to Early 2021 and Mid 2021. Early 2021 has come and gone. Still no EIR... Nevermind... I just saw the Jan 2021 update. EIR is expected in June 2021 now. |
|
