HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5061  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2019, 5:28 AM
numble numble is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
It’s not really correct to say that the tax rate doubles in 2039. It makes permanent the current level of transit taxation under A/C/R/M. When R would have expired, M increases. That money is accounted for in the M plan through the 2050s. There’s not going to be any excess money until then.
In the context of responding to the idea that Measure M is just acceleration of Measure R, I think it is perfectly correct to say that the tax rate doubles in 2039 and does not sunset. Measure J could be called simply an acceleration of Measure R, but Measure M does more than just accelerate Measure M.

In terms of excess money, Measure M predicts there will be $41.86 billion dedicated to transit construction by 2057 (35% of $121.39 billion) (22 years of 0.5% sales tax and 18 years of 1% sales tax), but the list of transit projects in the expenditure plan only dedicates $15.2 billion in Measure M funding—there is an extra $28.1 billion that hasn’t been dedicated to any projects. For Measure R, they predicted there will be $13.79 billion dedicated to transit construction by 2039 (30 years of 0.5% and then Measure R expires), and they allocate all $13.79 billion in the Measure R project list (including $3.2 billion as a contingency fund for cost increases on certain projects)—there is no gap between the predicted funds and the amount dedicated.

Some of the non-dedicated Measure M money is likely for a similar contingency fund; Measure R reserved an extra 33%, or $3.2 billion in case Measure R projects went over budget, but that contingency fund has been barely touched as projects are getting better than expected federal and state funding). I think some of it is going to small projects in the subregional project list, (but I think that is less than $5 billion, I didn’t bother to count). I am not sure where the rest of the money will go, but it could be that they would rather be conservative and dedicate less money in case the economy does not grow as much and there is less sales tax revenue.

I am optimistic that charging sales taxes on internet purchases (California starts doing it in 2019), SB1, ExpressLanes, PPPs, congestion pricing and a potential federal infrastructure bill will help loosen up Measure M revenue for new projects.

Example of how extra funding from elsewhere will lead to sales tax revenue being freed up and cascading effects:
Measure R dedicates $925 million to Expo Phase 2, but Expo Phase 2 also got $212 million from the state. It did not end up needing to use up its contingency. There was $216 million leftover and they sent $200 million to the Purple Line.

Assuming Metro gets federal full-funding grants on all Purple Line sections, Metro will have only spent $3.4 billion in Measure R funds on the Purple Line, even though Measure R dedicates $4.1 billion (plus another $1.4 billion contingency) to the Purple Line.

Last edited by numble; Jan 11, 2019 at 9:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5062  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2019, 5:42 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,474
Numble, you've made your case for Measure M. I guess what I was trying to say is that all of the M projects had been on the table and part of the discussion among pro-transit folk for a while; there was nothing 'radical' or unexpected about the project list.

As for your second point about there being more leeway after the M projects, you win. That being said, isn't it in writing that all M projects must be completed before new ones (i.e. Purple Line to SM) can be considered?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5063  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2019, 5:58 AM
numble numble is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Numble, you've made your case for Measure M. I guess what I was trying to say is that all of the M projects had been on the table and part of the discussion among pro-transit folk for a while; there was nothing 'radical' or unexpected about the project list.

As for your second point about there being more leeway after the M projects, you win. That being said, isn't it in writing that all M projects must be completed before new ones (i.e. Purple Line to SM) can be considered?
The ordinance as voted by the voters is that, every 10 years, the Metro board may "Add “Expenditure Plan Major Projects” and “Multi-Year Subregional Programs” to the Expenditure Plan by a two-thirds (2/3) vote so long as such additions do not delay the Groundbreaking Start Date, Expected Opening Date, or amount of “Measure M Funding 2015$” of any other “Expenditure Plan Major Project”.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5064  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2019, 4:54 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,474
The Gold Line set a new ridership record in December 2018, averaging 55,028 riders per weekday.

The overall rail system averaged 351,914 (highest ever was 372,320 back in October 2013). I expect the Blue Line to continue declining with the closures this year. I also don’t expect the planned upgrades to improve service much. Just grade-separate the damn thing already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5065  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2019, 6:07 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
The Gold Line set a new ridership record in December 2018, averaging 55,028 riders per weekday.

The overall rail system averaged 351,914 (highest ever was 372,320 back in October 2013). I expect the Blue Line to continue declining with the closures this year. I also don’t expect the planned upgrades to improve service much. Just grade-separate the damn thing already.
Interesting. I wonder what drove the increased Gold Line ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5066  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2019, 7:10 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
Interesting. I wonder what drove the increased Gold Line ridership.
I'm thinking the extension to Azusa is what increased the ridership. The Gold Line is regularly packed during the weekdays, and I've noticed that even on weekends, the Gold Line has a lot of riders.

I recently read online that the usage of the Metrolink station in Covina has dropped; some people are saying that it's because those riders are now using the Metro Gold Line, which is cheaper than Metrolink.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5067  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 10:06 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,003
Some truly excellent news:

Metro has whittled down the Sepulveda pass line to four options. Most excitingly to me, they have gotten rid of an LRT option, saying that LRT would be too low capacity for the boarding projected. The MRT is a monorail option, which would be the slowest and have the lowest capacity, but be cheaper by far.



More details available here:

https://la.curbed.com/2019/1/29/1820...s-travel-times
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5068  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 10:13 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Damn, 100,000 riders for just a handful of stations is really high numbers.

Do people actually trust those numbers? There's not much at either end of this line so it seems like most people are transferring at each endpoint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5069  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 10:26 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Some truly excellent news:

Metro has whittled down the Sepulveda pass line to four options. Most excitingly to me, they have gotten rid of an LRT option, saying that LRT would be too low capacity for the boarding projected. The MRT is a monorail option, which would be the slowest and have the lowest capacity, but be cheaper by far.

More details available here:

https://la.curbed.com/2019/1/29/1820...s-travel-times
Even better, every line now extends up to the Van Nuys Metrolink station. AND every line includes a station in the heart of UCLA. Truly excellent news indeed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5070  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 10:35 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
What's the time line to get to Ventura blvd and Ucla?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5071  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 10:59 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,003
My only real issue is that there should be a station between the Purple Line and the Expo Line. Would help drive development as LA continues to fill in, as well as reinforce the relatively central walkable nature of the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5072  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 11:19 PM
numble numble is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
The concepts from Expo to LAX were also released:



Full presentation and Metro blog post:
https://media.metro.net/projects_stu...or_2019-01.pdf

https://thesource.metro.net/2019/01/...nsit-corridor/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5073  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 11:45 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
What's the time line to get to Ventura blvd and Ucla?

I assume you are asking about travel time?

The presentation estimated 15-18 minutes to travel from Van Nuys Metrolink to Expo line via one of the 3 heavy rail options. So Ventura Blvd to UCLA campus should be about 7 or 8 minute tops

This is my estimates:
Van Nuys Metrolink to Orange Line ~ 2 minutes (4 minutes if option 3 which has extra station at Sherman Way)
Orange Line to Ventura Blvd ~ 2 minutes
Ventura Blvd to UCLA ~ 8 minutes
UCLA to Purple Line ~ 1 minute
Purple Line (Wilshire) to Expo Line ~ 2 minutes
Total 15 minutes (or 17 minutes with Sherman Way)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5074  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2019, 11:56 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Even better, every line now extends up to the Van Nuys Metrolink station. AND every line includes a station in the heart of UCLA. Truly excellent news indeed.
Metro definitely got the alignment options right this time. Also big ups on the Centinela alignment on the West side... much better than hugging the 405 waste zone.

Although I think the purple line extension option makes no sense if Sepulveda corridor line itself is heavy rail - why introduce a force transfer between UCLA and West side down to LAX? Extending purple line south only makes sense if the Sepulveda line is light rail ending at Wilshire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5075  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 12:13 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
I assume you are asking about travel time?

The presentation estimated 15-18 minutes to travel from Van Nuys Metrolink to Expo line via one of the 3 heavy rail options. So Ventura Blvd to UCLA campus should be about 7 or 8 minute tops

This is my estimates:
Van Nuys Metrolink to Orange Line ~ 2 minutes (4 minutes if option 3 which has extra station at Sherman Way)
Orange Line to Ventura Blvd ~ 2 minutes
Ventura Blvd to UCLA ~ 8 minutes
UCLA to Purple Line ~ 1 minute
Purple Line (Wilshire) to Expo Line ~ 2 minutes
Total 15 minutes (or 17 minutes with Sherman Way)
No, I mean what year for completion. But thanks for the other info. That seems super fast. What a huge deal this will be when it's done. wow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5076  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 1:00 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Metro definitely got the alignment options right this time. Also big ups on the Centinela alignment on the West side... much better than hugging the 405 waste zone.

Although I think the purple line extension option makes no sense if Sepulveda corridor line itself is heavy rail - why introduce a force transfer between UCLA and West side down to LAX? Extending purple line south only makes sense if the Sepulveda line is light rail ending at Wilshire.
I would be curious to see if they can make an option of extending the purple south and the 405 line south in the same tunnel. I wonder if they are worried about achieving the headways they want on both lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5077  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 1:07 AM
numble numble is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
What's the time line to get to Ventura blvd and Ucla?
They want to do it by 2028 if they can get more funding or a private partner. The original timeline under Measure M is 2033-2035.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5078  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 1:57 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,003
I feel like between this and the new WSAB adjustments, Metro is shifting their focus to speed. I'm not opposed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5079  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 2:02 AM
ceonwuka ceonwuka is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5
This is great news. They got the UCLA station, made it up to MetroLink and settled on a fully grade separated line; they actually covered all of the must-haves.

For phase 2 I prefer the Purple Line Extension going down Centinela instead of the 405. This could get us a station at Wilshire/Bundy. I'm willing to get rid of the Washington/Centinela station in order to get it.

The only real criticism I have of the proposal is the proliferation of potential Park and Ride locations along the route. Generally speaking, Park and Rides (if they have to be included at all) should ONLY be considered at either end of the line. In this case, there is absolutely no reason to have a Park and Ride anywhere other than the terminal station in the Valley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5080  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2019, 2:11 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJM19 View Post
I would be curious to see if they can make an option of extending the purple south and the 405 line south in the same tunnel. I wonder if they are worried about achieving the headways they want on both lines.
I'm really not sure there is a need to interline from a ridership perspective. You would only want to do that if you believe the ridership between LAX and Wilshire will be double of that between Wilshire and SFV. I just don't see it.

Over at the Transit Coalition forum, I agreed with an observation that someone else made that Metro will want to connect the two lines somehow via a junction somewhere because they will need to move trains from Purple line to the Sepulveda line phase 1 (there is no place for train yard in phase 1).

But for phase 2, Metro will be able to locate a yard near LAX so there won't be an operational need to move trains from Purple line to Sepulveda line. So no need to continue the interline operation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.