LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

We'll get a BRT down Vermont, everyone here will applaud and metro will say "oh....they seem to be happy with that, squash any idea of a redline extension down Vermont until further notice"

Kill the BRT and give me the Redline extension. GET IT DONE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, not decades later when the cost triples.

Metro seems to be the only one excited about a BRT. Even the mayor is saying it might not be the best option.

Getting done right means doing a BRT and a rail corridor down Vermont Avenue to handle the 50,000 daily riders along the corridor. Much like Wilshire corridor, BRT is operating right now with the peak bus only lanes while a subway is being built. Nothing wrong with that, in fact once the Purple Line opens the BRT above will be a perfect local feeder to the subway so that stations can be spaced a little farther apart for a future corridor like Vermont thus saving costs and providing faster corridor service.

Metro is excited about it because it can be done quickly and achieve an immediate benefit, If SB 743 and other CEQA related reforms occurred to enable EIR review expediting that can shorten the time frame even further.

However making Vermont HRT makes no fiscal sense at the moment because with the push for getting 28 projects done by 2028 that will severely limit bonding capacity for other projects because a simple BRT/Bus Only Lanes now has exploded beyond the budget.

Also, is metro against having its HRT above ground ? similar to that of the BART in the bay and EL in Chicago ? because I would assume that taking the red line extension out of the ground once its at Gage, where Vermont doubles in width, and elevate it to cut costs? I would assume an elevated line would be cheaper than tunneling.

Well we need an EIR to study and review this, and realistically some jackass will come out of the woodwork and say, that this wide corridor should be all underground and not be elevated south of Gage which further drives up the costs.

[caligrad]

^^^ When you put it that way, I'm all for a BRT AND HRT combo, but, my only concern with that is that we've been shafted in the past with "if its not broke, leave it alone for decades" mentality in regards to metros plans. I have the 90s jitters when people turned down HRT because of the methane gas explosions, Metro seemingly sat still for more than a decade with no new lines when BRT and LRT were still very much on the table. "Find the funding somewhere" should have been their mentality. When the Blue line opened, it cost 877 million.... The WG cost 1.3 billion to build. A very rough estimate, i'd say with todays dollars, The blue line if built today would cost about the same as the WG. Metro could have given us atleast 3-4 lines during the 90s and early 2000s.

I just want to get it done asap while everyone seems to be on the same page in regards to LA seriously needing transit. The purple line extension is costing... what? 8 billion ? sounds like a lot but when hearing how things are being priced everywhere else, we are actually getting it on the cheap. So....roughly 8 billion for the purple extension, we can get 6-7 LRT lines the length of the current blue line running all through South LA, the west side and the south bay. EASY. We need more east west and north south lines. We need a system that is focused on transfer points and not just getting everybody from point A to DTLA which is our current system.

And the Redline extension down vermont i feel is a brilliant idea, The Red/Purple lines need to be seperated. But youre right. Some idiot will insist that its pushed underground the entire way. Im probably the only one on here that doesnt mind LRT (in areas outside of downtown and the wilshire corridor), and i dont mind bringing HRT out of the ground, once its in the valley and south of the 10 and east of the river. I just need Metro to be way more ambitious.

Originally Posted by NSMP

No reason to think metro is opposed to above grade HRT; they have proposed it for multiple projects in the past.

For which ones? The only 2 I can remember is for the Arts district station which really doesn't count and the Redline extension in the valley which seems to change directions and ideas every other year.

[NSMP]

Sepulveda and the current Orange Line are the first that come to mind.

Edit: also the original red line past Fairfax.

[caligrad]

^^^ Oh.....The Sepulveda line being elevated going through the West Side? How do the West Side nimbys feel about that? LOL i'd imagine they would rather become an independent nation or die before they let that happen HAHAHA They'd be out with their pitchforks, iphones and curling irons screaming revolution. I always thought that line was supposed to be completely underdround are at grade in some capacity. Having it elevated would be interesting.

And yeah, the Redline extension that potentially points in 3 different directions in the valley is the only one i could think of.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ Oh.....The Sepulveda line being elevated going through the West Side? How do the West Side nimbys feel about that? LOL i'd imagine they would rather become an independent nation or die before they let that happen HAHAHA They'd be out with their pitchforks, iphones and curling irons screaming revolution. I always thought that line was supposed to be completely underdround are at grade in some capacity. Having it elevated would be interesting.

And yeah, the Redline extension that potentially points in 3 different directions in the valley is the only one i could think of.

Yeah I don’t think any of these are current proposals. But they were all considered in the past. Vermont will definitely be proposed at grade south of Gage, although as Jerard said there will undoubtedly be some contention about that.

Els make a lot of sense on LA’s supersized boulevards. People making comparisons to NY seem to think putting an El in the middle of a 200 ft road will create inescapable shadows and squalor.

[Busy Bee]

Trenches make just as much sense on LA’s supersized boulevards.

[NSMP]

Listen as long as it’s fully grade separated, i don’t care

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Vermont will definitely be proposed at grade south of Gage, although as Jerard said there will undoubtedly be some contention about that.

Well if it's HRT, it can't be at-grade, correct?

[SoCalKid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52622f38e472


This could be very good for LA. $200 billion in federal funding for jurisdictions willing to raise dedicated money for infrastructure locally. Between Measure R, Measure M, Measure C, Measure A, and Expresslanes, we'd arguably be the most competitive county in the nation.

As described by White House aides familiar with Trump’s initiative, additional federal funding would be available on a competitive basis for states and localities that submit plans outlining how they plan to raise new revenue dedicated to infrastructure.

Jurisdictions could raise their gas or sales tax rates, for example, or increase revenue flowing to infrastructure projects in a variety of other ways, such as imposing new tolls on roads or selling off existing assets to the private sector to generate money for new projects.

“We will be agnostic as to the type of revenue, as long as it is new and dedicated to infrastructure,” said one White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely about a plan the administration is not yet prepared to announce.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Well if it's HRT, it can't be at-grade, correct?

That should’ve said above grade

[202_Cyclist]

Metrolink wraps up extension to downtown San Bernardino


Image courtesy of Progressive Railroading

Progressive Railroading
Dec. 6, 2017

"Metrolink yesterday marked the completion of a 1-mile extension to downtown San Bernardino, California.

The commuter railroad's San Bernardino and Inland Empire/Orange County lines have been extended from their terminus at the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot to the recently finished San Bernardino Transit Center.

Trains will begin rolling on the extension on Dec. 16, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) officials said in a press release..."

http://www.progressiverailroading.co...nardino--53408

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by caligrad

^^^ When you put it that way, I'm all for a BRT AND HRT combo, but, my only concern with that is that we've been shafted in the past with "if its not broke, leave it alone for decades" mentality in regards to metros plans. I have the 90s jitters when people turned down HRT because of the methane gas explosions, Metro seemingly sat still for more than a decade with no new lines when BRT and LRT were still very much on the table. "Find the funding somewhere" should have been their mentality.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/nov/04/news/mn-39290

In the mid 1990's there were sinkholes both literally down Hollywood Blvd and fiscally with no fiduciary prudence in place for rail projects - that started out of as good strong modest and cost effective extensions suddenly balloon out of control and all became subways- and there was no rhyme or reason to justify the added expense in one part of the County when the rest of LA County still sees no improvements.

It was commented at the time that agency had Champagne and Caviar dreams but only had the budget of beer and peanuts. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who sponsored the ballot initiative, said the victory should "liberate the MTA" from its preoccupation with the subway.

I will add a footnote because this is voter approved Countywide Tax measure every part of the county needs to get something out of it and deliver on that promise. Without it, we will repeat history from a generation ago. Personally I feel with the current turnover of new board members that we will, because the institutional memory is gone to help them figure out the right balance.

I just want to get it done asap while everyone seems to be on the same page in regards to LA seriously needing transit. The purple line extension is costing... what? 8 billion ? sounds like a lot but when hearing how things are being priced everywhere else, we are actually getting it on the cheap. So....roughly 8 billion for the purple extension, we can get 6-7 LRT lines the length of the current blue line running all through South LA, the west side and the south bay. EASY. We need more east west and north south lines. We need a system that is focused on transfer points and not just getting everybody from point A to DTLA which is our current system.

Exactly, which is why keeping costs under control is so important. Yes it will cost roughly $7.5B of that about 50% of the funding is coming from D.C. so that is a big, big deal. However other extensions of lines may not qualify for New Starts grants as it may not have enough bang for the buck so we have to stretch as much of our local dollars as possible.

And the Redline extension down vermont i feel is a brilliant idea, The Red/Purple lines need to be separated. But you're right. Some idiot will insist that its pushed underground the entire way. I'm probably the only one on here that doesn't mind LRT (in areas outside of downtown and the wilshire corridor), and i dont mind bringing HRT out of the ground, once its in the valley and south of the 10 and east of the river. I just need Metro to be way more ambitious.

I personally don't mind LRT either because realistically the high costs of separating the two lines will not make it worth the convenience as we will have an overloaded transfer station at Wilshire/Vermont away from the core CBD affecting capacity. This is similar to Toronto's condition at Bloor/Yonge interchange where two busy subway lines intersect and that effects the lines capacity into the CBD.

And in the same justification to bring the HRT out of the tunnel and onto elevated bridge and on separated corridors are important to see the flexibility of it.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52622f38e472


This could be very good for LA. $200 billion in federal funding for jurisdictions willing to raise dedicated money for infrastructure locally. Between Measure R, Measure M, Measure C, Measure A, and Expresslanes, we'd arguably be the most competitive county in the nation.

However the tax plan that the Republicans passed contradicts this move.

Before the private sector originally had an incentive to be a PPP partner in an infrastructure project due to a tax break. With the GOP Tax Reform bill in its current design, that will now be gone, thus removing that connection and potential source to leverage private sector funding, accelerate timelines through streamlining and reduce costs. All are solid conservative principles seemingly out of the window.

Way to go Trump!

From the Washington Post article:
"Local officials have also raised concerns that the GOP tax bills pending in Congress would curtail the ability of Americans to deduct state and local taxes on their federal returns. If those provisions become law, it becomes more difficult for states and localities to turn to constituents for more revenue for infrastructure.

And local officials are watching nervously to see whether a provision in the House tax bill remains in the final version sent to Trump’s desk. The provision would eliminate a tax exemption for private activity bonds, which are used to finance infrastructure projects. Such a move would “increase financing costs for projects and inhibit much-needed infrastructure,” accord to an assessment by Moody’s Investors Service.

LA will be further screwed by this plan because we are already one of the biggest self help counties in the nation that is paying a great deal into our own infrastructure and our region is a heavy donor state to the nation as for every $1 we give to D.C. we are getting only $0.79 back!

All this does is Trump playing hot potato in his commitment to federal funding through other grants and incentives. This is the same BS move Ronald Reagan made after the big tax cut in 1981-82.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

[

I personally don't mind LRT either because realistically the high costs of separating the two lines will not make it worth the convenience as we will have an overloaded transfer station at Wilshire/Vermont away from the core CBD affecting capacity. This is similar to Toronto's condition at Bloor/Yonge interchange where two busy subway lines intersect and that effects the lines capacity into the CBD.

And in the same justification to bring the HRT out of the tunnel and onto elevated bridge and on separated corridors are important to see the flexibility of it.

I think this is an important point to mention when considering Vermont corridor rail.

The existing Wilshire/Vermont station is not ideal for transfer so it will overwhelm the stacked station. Additionally, the platform and track alignment are also wrong for extending the Red line south. If we insist on a HRT extension south from Wilshire/Vermont, it will inevitably involve complete shut down of the station for rebuild and significant disruption to existing Purple and Red line operation.

Couple that with the fact that south of Gage, HRT will require elevated grade separation due to 3rd rail, the math starts to work in favor of a separate LRT line that can bypass existing Wilshire/Vermont station and use the surface right of way south of Gage.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

However the tax plan that the Republicans passed contradicts this move.

Before the private sector originally had an incentive to be a PPP partner in an infrastructure project due to a tax break. With the GOP Tax Reform bill in its current design, that will now be gone, thus removing that connection and potential source to leverage private sector funding, accelerate timelines through streamlining and reduce costs. All are solid conservative principles seemingly out of the window.

Way to go Trump!

From the Washington Post article:
"Local officials have also raised concerns that the GOP tax bills pending in Congress would curtail the ability of Americans to deduct state and local taxes on their federal returns. If those provisions become law, it becomes more difficult for states and localities to turn to constituents for more revenue for infrastructure.

And local officials are watching nervously to see whether a provision in the House tax bill remains in the final version sent to Trump’s desk. The provision would eliminate a tax exemption for private activity bonds, which are used to finance infrastructure projects. Such a move would “increase financing costs for projects and inhibit much-needed infrastructure,” accord to an assessment by Moody’s Investors Service.

LA will be further screwed by this plan because we are already one of the biggest self help counties in the nation that is paying a great deal into our own infrastructure and our region is a heavy donor state to the nation as for every $1 we give to D.C. we are getting only $0.79 back!

All this does is Trump playing hot potato in his commitment to federal funding through other grants and incentives. This is the same BS move Ronald Reagan made after the big tax cut in 1981-82.

Agreed that the tax plan will be disastrous in all sorts of ways, including for PPP opportunities here in LA. I in no way support it or any of the politicians behind it (to put it mildly).

However, if the $200 billion infrastructure plan were to go through, I believe we would be able to secure a large chunk of it because of our extensive local revenue dedicated to transit infrastructure. That being said, I'm certainly not holding my breath for this plan.

[202_Cyclist]

But you forget that Donald Trumputin’s proposed budget contains large cuts to transit (and intercity passenger rail). Any benefit from the proposed $200B infrastructure proposal is negated by this. Shame!

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/05/...o-wall-street/

“Capital grants for transit expansion projects, known as New Starts, would also be hit especially hard, with a cut of $928 million, or 43 percent, compared to what Congress has allocated for the current fiscal year. The Trump administration says it will support projects that have already signed funding agreements with the federal government, but wants to eventually eliminate New Starts completely.”

[Busy Bee]

Weak on Transit! SAD!

[electricron]

All these planned budget cuts will not be happening in a vacuum. There's a proposal for huge amounts of cash going to infrastructure projects in Trump's plans, more than enough to replace these budget cuts for transit.

While neither the expanded infrastructure funding nor budget cuts have passed by Congress yet, the overall plan is to do both. But that doesn't mean both will ever get done, at the same time or years apart.

But it is slightly unfair for the newspapers to concentrate discussions over budget cuts for certain programs while completely ignoring programs being expanded.

[202_Cyclist]

Please elaborate-- which programs will expand funding for transit?

The Orange Anus proposes to eliminate New Starts funding and the tax giveaway passed by the House and Senate would elimate the favorable tax treatments for private activity bonds issued by state and local governments. At least billionaires will have more tax loopholes...

Also, the elimination of the deduction of state and local property taxes will make it more difficult politically for localities to fund these transit expansions. So much winning!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Please elaborate-- which programs will expand funding for transit?

That's difficult because the formal announcement of the plan hasn't been released yet. But that doesn't mean there is no plan....
Please read......
http://thehill.com/policy/transporta...t-month-report